do you spend a lot of time worrying about sharpness ?

removed account4 · Aug 15, 2016

at a certain level i think it is often times people test the extremes and gravitate to what they like.
i love how some sharp detailed images look, there is always something to grab my eye, there is honesty
even thought it seems that my own eyes don't see reality with such perfection it is almost idealized to show
what is there. and the pictorial images give more of a feeling and allow me to read between the lines more
which leads the image to interpretation. i think both of these modes and everything in-between make
photography almost the most malleable art form for someone with or without artistic training.
once someone figures out through trial and error the 2 extremes .. and find their happy medium a camera
can be used for just about anything from making things that might exist in a hallucination of hyper reality or a dream like trance.
its easy to get caught in extremes and forget that you can make a sharp detailed honest photograph
that might have some soft elements to it to take some of the edge off or the other way around.
if it is a genre i have no interest in ( glamour, grand landscape, &c ) no amount of sharpness or lack of it
will make me want to stare at it for a longer period of time. i'm not one that lingers, and i am not one who
looks at grain or details with a loupe. i just look ... that doesn't mean i won't spend hours
trying to make the same types of photographs myself because i might have the twisted notion that i don't
like it because i stink at creating images that have the right combination of ecclesiastic light, f128DOF
thick emulsion contact print or gauzian blur, twysted bellows, and selective focus in my own work so i
gravitate to things i can do as my own norm ( and where i mgiht fit on that scale of extremes ).

RattyMouse · Aug 15, 2016

jnanian said:
if you make sharp images, what do you do to get your results?

Shoot medium format with Fujinon lenses. Shoot Acros film or TMAX 400. Sharpness guaranteed.

MartinCrabtree · Aug 15, 2016

Generally no however some subjects benefit from a sharp image.

benjiboy · Aug 15, 2016

I shoot mainly 35mm and 120 colour transparencies these days and there's nothing like showing up movement blur and focusing errors than to project them onto a 50" X50" screen.

removed account4 · Aug 15, 2016

hi michael

i have been using a p/s camera a little bit these days,
and a p/s with zone focus, and it is amazing even with a camera
that nearly does it all for you how much decision making there is.
cropping, camera angle/perspective, where to i hold the shutter release 1/2way down to focus
do i put the fill flash on to drag the shutter, do i set the iso on the front of the camera ( if no dx code reader )
to a different iso, do i use a beanbag or tripod, lean against something exhale slowly
... lots of decisions that can create sharp or unsharp images even with a simple device.
its almost as complicated as a camera with bellows that is all manual ...

David Brown · Aug 15, 2016

jnanian said:
do you spend a lot of time worrying about sharpness?
if you make sharp images, what do you do to get your results?

"Worry"? No.

Do I work at getting reasonably sharp images? Yes. Is that what I'm thinking about when I set up a shot? No.

Most of my 35mm is handheld, but rarely "wide-open" and usually with a fast enough shutter speed. Most medium format is with an RB67, never off a tripod just due to sheer weight. I do have smaller 120 formats which get both handheld and tripod use.

Everybody has a style. I don't do intentional blur, swirly bokeh, or vaseline on the lens, etc.; but that's just me. I feel sharpness is a good thing, but obsessing over charts, tests and the relative merits of lens A over lens B is way overkill. All of my lenses are "sharp" enough.

Jim Jones · Aug 15, 2016

Sharpness? It depends. Some "soft" portrait lenses produce beautiful photographs. Some subjects demand clinically sharp lenses. If the subject is more important than its image, sharpness is usually good. A viewer can ignore sharp but unimportant details. Lighting is usually a better tool than selective sharpness for emphasizing the subject. If the photographer's interpretation of the subject is more important than the subject itself, anything goes. A viewer obsessive with sharpness can ignore the entire photograph.

R.Gould · Aug 15, 2016

no never, I hand hold everything, down to 1/2 second, it is the picture that counts for me, yes, if the image is pin sharp it is great, but I never worry my head about such things

michr · Aug 15, 2016

I worry a whole lot less about sharpness now that I've use mostly medium and large format film. It seems like a lot of the discussion about sharpness is in relation to getting the most out of the 35mm format. I see no reason to pay a big premium to squeeze the last bit out of a small format when for quite a bit less money I can use a cheap lens on an old Speed Graphic and end up with a lot more detail.

I also notice a general trend in camera forums where sharpness and gear talk is the norm rather than how to make the best photographs. Sharpness has the aura of objectiveness which makes it easy to discuss. But sharpness in itself is not necessary for a great photograph. I've seen a lot of work that would actually be poorer with complete sharpness.

As an aside, one of the most disheartening comments I've heard about one of my photographs was about how sharp the image was, a sort of bottom-rung faint praise. Speaking as an amateur only, I don't want the viewer to see the photograph (as components), or think about the photographic process when looking at my work. Unless they themselves are trained it photography, they should notice the subject and what is conveyed in the photograph. Anything else is the equivalent of noting the nice typography in a novel. While a foundational element, it's beside the point.

naaldvoerder · Aug 15, 2016

Only in one way. The way the grain is represented on the paper.

blindpig · Aug 15, 2016

Guess I'd have to say sharpness isn't the first thing I look for in a photo,if the subject,composition and finish don't draw me to a photo the sharpness wouldn't matter anyway.

Dali · Aug 15, 2016

Sharpness is one variable amongst others like light quality, contrast or general composition. If it brings something more to the picture, why not worrying about it.... If it is the only reason the picture is taken, no real interest (apart for those named by KR).

LAG · Aug 15, 2016

jnanian said:
...do you spend a lot of time worrying about sharpness? do you stop down to a small aperture, use a
tripod, low iso film, developers like xtol or dinafine or ?, printing masks to get beautiful sharp prints
tha have a (sometimes) extreme graphic quality to them, or do you just not worry about it .. sometimes
low iso, sometimes high, sometimes stand develop so you have mushy tones, use fstops that are larger apertures, shoot through ziplock bags, or whatever else it might take to give you the opposite of sharpness.

if you make sharp images, what do you do to get your results?
if you don't do sharp, what do you do to get those results?

Excuse me jnanian

Sharpness (as it is also the lack of it) is a resource of "communication", so that's what you need to spend the time to worry about

Diapositivo · Aug 16, 2016

Sharpness is something I do keep in mind and to which I give a very high priority.
Whenever possible I use tripod, f/8 or f/9, mirror up, self-timer when practical.
I do like "pixel peeping" at images (what I have to do in any case for semi-professional reasons, I have to inspect each image at 100% and correct chromatic aberration and other minor flows) and I do like to see in images details that I would have never noticed while taking the picture. It's one of the magic sides of photography, plunging inside an image and finding minuscule interesting things.

I perfectly understand the mindset of the photographer in the film "Blow-Up" by Antonioni.

Luckless · Aug 16, 2016

If given the choice between gear that I know can consistently produce a sharp image, and gear which can be expected to produce a soft image, then I will always prefer to have the gear that will produce a sharp clean image in my collection.

Gear that I can rely on to take a sharp image is also gear that I can choose to take softer images with by various means. The reverse is not really the same.

As a photographer I generally prefer a clean crisp look to my photography, but it is also about context. Various motion blur aspects in sports for example is not a complete negative point in my view, as long as the image produced is still pleasing and interesting.

Doc W · Aug 16, 2016

Terry Breedlove said:
When I have the Hasselblad or 4x5 on the tripod and doing landscapes yes I am interested in getting a good exposure and sharp photos. When I am shooting 35mm on the streets or chasing my granddaughter around I am much more interested in just getting the shot in the camera at all cost. Sometimes that might mean pushing the film and getting more grain etc but that is ok. It might mean the photo isn't perfectly in focus but that is ok. Some of my most cherished shots are not anywhere technically perfect and that is ok. More than that in some of those less than perfect shots the imperfections actually give it more meaning and more purpose. Just take a look at Capas D day photos. They are blurry out of focus and technically horrible. Yet it is those same qualities that give those shots even more emotional draw and power.

Terry, this is a thoughtful answer and I agree completely.

If I am shooting 4x5 and larger, I would be concerned if my images were not sharp. My standard for hand-held MF is a little more generous. And at my age, I would need new equipment for chasing the grand kids around (i.e., new knees).

I don't recall ever deliberately thinking about improving sharpness in my images other than going to larger negatives and I think that this might be the concern mainly of 35mm shooters. I don't mean this in a condescending way but I find that most of the discussion about sharpness is about materials and techniques for use with the smaller format, and I think it is a legitimate concern. If you want very sharp enlargements from smaller negatives, you have to pay attention to a number of parameters that are of less concern with larger formats.

I always roll my eyes at the old "measurebaiter" slander. Some people understand photographic processes in a very technical way and many of them produce great work. I am not so inclined because I don't have a very scientific or mathematical mind. Sometimes I wish I did and I am always grateful to those who help me to understand some of the chemical complexities of photography. Let me make parallel with music. I am a musician (classically- trained) and many times I have taken flack from other musicians simply for using the terminology of the trade. In those instances, the critics and name-callers usually have no clue what they are talking about but love to attack others who do. It's not my fault that someone might not know, for example, what a suspension is and how to resolve it, or a secondary seventh.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 16, 2016

blindpig said:
Guess I'd have to say sharpness isn't the first thing I look for in a photo,if the subject,composition and finish don't draw me to a photo the sharpness wouldn't matter anyway.

+1

destroya · Aug 16, 2016

sharpness is important to an extent for me. I choose prime lenses over zooms as I think they are sharper. I also use a sturdy tripod and mirror lock up when shooting landscapes. And the developer I use for B&W makes a difference when I want extra sharpness. But its all based on the subject matter. More important to me is composition and tonality. If i can get sharp prints as well, then all the better.

I gotta admit, there is nothing worse (except for HDR maybe) than an over sharpened digital print.

baachitraka · Aug 16, 2016

It is absolutely an essential thing for me to the level of what holga 120 lens can reach. After that I don't really care...

LAG · Aug 16, 2016

Terry Breedlove said:
When I have the Hasselblad or 4x5 on the tripod and doing landscapes yes I am interested in getting a good exposure and sharp photos. When I am shooting 35mm on the streets or chasing my granddaughter around I am much more interested in just getting the shot in the camera at all cost...

Doc W said:
Terry, this is a thoughtful answer and I agree completely.

If I am shooting 4x5 and larger, I would be concerned if my images were not sharp. My standard for hand-held MF is a little more generous. And at my age, I would need new equipment for chasing the grand kids around (i.e., new knees) ...

Excuse me Terry & Doc W

In either case, if you asked me to bet on, i am pretty sure both of you will try to make sure you have your grand's eyes quite sharp and clear in those portraits! (and if i may add, those eyes are much more important than the sharpest landscape)

Alan Johnson · Aug 16, 2016

Erwin Puts was into this:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051017021246/http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/imagechain.html
Don't mention acutance.

Doc W · Aug 16, 2016

LAG said:
Excuse me Terry & Doc W

In either case, if you asked me to bet on, i am pretty sure both of you will try to make sure you have your grand's eyes quite sharp and clear in those portraits! (and if i may add, those eyes are much more important than the sharpest landscape)

You got that right!

Terry Breedlove · Aug 16, 2016

It is not that I am trying to take blurry shots even though I have done that as well. I just think that many people lose track on the true power of photography and focus to much on equipment and even technique. I see these talking heads online and on youtube and I see the level of their work and I just think they would be better of thinking about why they are shooting more than what they are shooting with. Honestly going through a few art galleries and listening to music will put you in a better creative space and help more in achieving something worth printing. Than what you get wasting your time bloviating about sharpness and all that techical stuff. I have been doing this for decades and I have made every mistake and wasted so much time chasing things not worth my time. This is my lesson learned the long and hard way. Capture the moment and shoot something that has meaning to you. The rest will fall into place naturally and in good time you will end up with a lot of work with real value. No matter how you personally measure that.

DREW WILEY · Aug 16, 2016

No. I don't think about it very often at all. That's because I've already paid my dues and know how to optimize sharpness in both the field and the darkroom. Now it's a tool like any other. While I've never been into soft-focus work, the concept of sharpness is a matter of degree. What are you
trying to achieve aesthetically, and able to achieve. People on these forums get into endless silly mathematical discussions about this, esp once digi lingo irrelevantly and irreverently enters the discussion. Well, here's some math for you: 8x10 film is Godzilla, 35mm is Bambi. Guess who stomps
who?

MattKing · Aug 16, 2016

Define your terms!

"Sharpness" is not the same as resolution. It is inherently subjective, even if there are objective components to it. Those components include acutance, resolution, local contrast and contrast in general.

You can make prints that show a lot of fine detail but give a very low impression of sharpness. The soft focus lenses are good for that, as are certain printing approaches. You can also make prints that show very little fine detail, but give a very high impression of sharpness. Grain and edge effects and contrasty negatives are good for that, as are certain other printing approaches.

In our dining area I have two 11x14 prints in frames, hung one above the other. Each was printed essentially full frame from a 6x7 negative. In each case the camera was on a tripod, and the scene offered still conditions and even light. I'm not sure which films were used, but Plus-X is likely. The negatives were developed in HC-110.

From the far side of the table, the lower print looks to be "sharper". If you get close, you realize that while both reveal a lot of detail, the top print actually reveals more fine detail. The differences are that the bottom scene offered a wider range of reflectances and had slightly more contrasty light. The printing decisions I made accentuated the differences between the scenes - the gradation of tones is more subtle in the top print, and more harsh or bold in the bottom print. In each case, I made decisions (including the decision to actually take the shots) that supported a subjective goal. As a side effect, however, I also obtained results that apparently differ in "sharpness".

In some cases, people use "sharpness" when they really mean accurate focus, lack of motion blur, resolution of important detail and suitable contrast. If used in respect to those factors, "sharpness" is desirable in a lot of cases. When photographing under difficult conditions - think windy days or children's birthday parties - you sometimes do need to spend a lot of time and worry about that sort of "sharpness".

do you spend a lot of time worrying about sharpness ?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency