do you spend a lot of time worrying about sharpness ?

[Jeff Bradford]

My goal is "not blurry". If I get the subject in focus and avoid motion blur, a lens would have to be pretty "unsharp" to disappoint me.
Composition, exposure, proper use of the techniques available to me, those are what I worry about. I have only twice rejected equipment for not being sharp enough. One was a lens with some sort of internal haze. The other was a Nikon One-Touch compact camera that never seemed to get anything into proper focus.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

PICTORIALISM !!!

If you watch the video listen carefully to the distinction e between documentary photography and art photography. If your intention is documentation then worry about sharpness. If not then ...

Note that the second half of the video wanders off on Pinterest and really need not be watched.

http://theartofphotography.tv/episodes/pictorialism/

 

[Sirius Glass]

I set up the sharpness that I want when I compose the photograph. Then after I take the photograph I never think about it again because I already know that I have sharpness the way I want it for the rest of the developing and printing.

 

[TheRook]

Obsession with sharpness often leads to forgetting what good photography is really about - creating meaningful, interesting photos. You will find this especially true on digital photography forums; the members most obsessed with sharpness usually produce boring, poorly composed images. They are too busy zooming in to examine the fine details rather than looking at the image as a whole and what level of visual impact it has.

 

[Ron789]

If your intention is documentation then worry about sharpness.

Not necessarily.... some of the best documentary photo's ever are very blurry..... think of Robert Capa’s Iconic D-Day Photo of a Soldier in the Surf. And there are many more examples.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

John,
No mention in your detailed list of one critical component:
A sharp mind. All else is relative, not material absolute.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

To me it not so easy. I have sold Canon 100L because lens is clinically sharp. Yet, every time I read what Skopar is as good as Summarit, or how sharp industar 61l/d is it puts big smile on my face.
I have tried pinhole on Leica, but I prefer Summarit 35 on f11 and at 1/8 handheld. And I prefer Leica lens, because it is not Industar.
And I see why Cosina Z lenses are more expensive than CV. To me sharpness isn't critical for color. But for lith and bw I prefer Leica no-ASPH lenses, because they offer not just sharpness and Skopar like contrast.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Not necessarily.... some of the best documentary photo's ever are very blurry..... think of Robert Capa’s Iconic D-Day Photo of a Soldier in the Surf. And there are many more examples.

Capra's photos are not that way on purpose. His camera and film was dropped in the salt water and most of the negatives destroyed. Those that could be saved later are still severely damaged. This accounts for their appearance. IIRC Capra barely survived himself.

Documentary photography is often done under very stressful conditions. However I would believe that these photographers would want the best images possible.

 

[Ron789]

Capra's photos are not that way on purpose. His camera and film was dropped in the salt water and most of the negatives destroyed. Those that could be saved later are still severely damaged. This accounts for their appearance. IIRC Capra barely survived himself.

It doesn't matter whether it was on purpose or not. The most beautiful photo's can be made by accident. It's the image that matters, not how it was created.

 

[dpurdy]

Obsession with sharpness often leads to forgetting what good photography is really about - creating meaningful, interesting photos. You will find this especially true on digital photography forums; the members most obsessed with sharpness usually produce boring, poorly composed images. They are too busy zooming in to examine the fine details rather than looking at the image as a whole and what level of visual impact it has.

So is everyone who wants sharpness obsessed with it? Are the same amount of people obsessed with dreamy soft images and is that better?

 

[benjiboy]

I don't worry about my photography, if I can't take a decent photograph after more than sixty years practice there's something seriously wrong, I do however worry all the time about my wife and children.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It doesn't matter whether it was on purpose or not. The most beautiful photo's can be made by accident. It's the image that matters, not how it was created.

However this comment does not pertain to the question presented by the OP who does assume that the photographer is in control.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Sharpness is a crutch that mediocrity leans on.

 

[Vaughn]

Sharpness is just one of the qualities of an image I strive for. I think about it no less and no more than subject matter, composition, exposure, printing process, etc. I think about all these factors a lot...a whole lot. I do not worry about them, because, why worry? I do not photograph in order to worry, I photograph to create. I have three 19 year-old boys whom I reserve worry for.

 

[Sirius Glass]

So is everyone who wants sharpness obsessed with it? Are the same amount of people obsessed with dreamy soft images and is that better?

No a word? ... No

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It's a tool - when I want sharp, I choose the tool that will give me sharp. When I want a different mood in my image, I choose something else that will give me the look and feel I want in the image. Could be a Hermagis Eidoscope, could be a pinhole, could be my cheapo Lomo Belair. Each of them have their own unique feel. But no, I don't worry or think about it.

 

[removed-user-1]

I realized a few years back that for some subjects, I want subtle details to show up. I used to consider this "sharpness." Now I just try to nail the focus and get close enough that my composition shows what I'm after. For other subjects, I want the mood to show and am less concerned about details. Of course, I like lenses that make good photographs but I think most lenses can achieve that.

Had an experience with "sharpness" in another (digital) photo forum once. I posted a rather nice bridal head and shoulders portrait, taken through a soft-focus filter and an f/2.8 zoom lens wide open. Focus was right on the bride's eyes, you could count her eyelashes, but there was this lovely glow due to the filter. And of course, at f/2.8 the background was just a wash of color. All I got for comments was how it wasn't sharp. Grumble.

 

[TheRook]

So is everyone who wants sharpness obsessed with it? Are the same amount of people obsessed with dreamy soft images and is that better?

Of course not. However, if you spend too much time worrying about sharpness to the point of compromising your image for the sake of achieving maximum obtainable sharpness (see thread's original post), then you are clearly obsessing about sharpness.

 

[williaty]

There's two real avenues of conversation opened up by this question.

I wonder how many people (not necessarily in this thread but in the general pool of photographers) are covering up photographic incompetence by claiming that sharpness is a bourgeois concept. To be honest, that was one of the most infuriating things in art school. Soooo many other students couldn't get their heads around basic technique and then decided that, because they couldn't do it, a technically proficient photograph was inherently non-artistic. I had to sit through way too many damned hipsters (though I don't think anyone was calling them hipsters yet) on critique days claiming that everything done by Adams, Weston, Lange, Cunningham, et. al. (basically everyone who ever attended a Group f64 meeting or show) were not worthy of being called art because they "leaned on technical quality like a crutch". Photographic mastery demands that you be able to achieve critical sharpness at will and also that you be able to achieve unsharpness (through motion or through defocus) at will and deploy whichever will more strongly support your desired image intent.

The second interesting avenue of conversation is what really is meant by "a lot of time" and "worrying". The phrasing is clearly pejorative, or at least nearly certain to be interpreted so by most. Is someone who chooses to use a tripod, Mirror Up Mode, and a cable release spending a lot of time worrying? Is someone who bothers to take a quick test chart shot with a new lens to check for de-centering of elements due to rough shipping spending a lot of time worrying about sharpness? Is someone who uses a grain focuser in the darkroom spending a lot of time worrying about sharpness? To me, these are all requirements of the basic craft of photography. You have to get this stuff right before you can possibly convey artistic intent successfully. Taking a moment to do simple things to ensure you get the results needed to create your artistic vision is not really taking a lot of time nor is it worrying. Thinking and acting with intent is really the key to this entire process.


Now, clearly, there are people who go off the deep end on this one. Taking a look at dpreview will show that in frightening depth! If you spend more time obsessing, reading, and testing sharpness than you do producing actual work, then yeah you're in need of a nice long vacation in a room with squishy white walls.

 

[Helinophoto]

Yes i do.



But this is mostly to gauge how my self CLA'd jupiter-8's and jupiter-3's have been doing, and how they have performed on my Leica.

Same too regarding the actual sharpness of my Rolleflex, my Hasselblad and my other Medium-format cameras I own. I was interested to see what they are actually capable off, and if they need to be adjusted.
- I have bought new ground-glass for my Hassy and two Rolleiflexes, since they were just about impossible to focus with (not sharp ), and I know the sweet-spot on my Rolleiflexes and my Bessa II now.

Same too, regarding my Epson v750. After checking the detail on it, I found that I needed to adjust my Betterscanning-negative holder UP by almost 2.5mm(!), since I wasn't pulling out all the information from the negatives during scanning.
(yes, I also print in the darkroom and then I have a grain-loupe).

I really couldn't give less of a turd about what Bresson felt about sharpness. (really).

If your gear isn't performing well, it's important to know, you should be able to capture a sharp photo whenever you want it.
But I do agree, sharpness isn't the be-all, end-all in photography, but spending your life capturing out of focus or shots with rather little detail in them, because of technical faulty gear, seems strange to me.

Measurbating isn't photography, but blurry photo's aren't necessarily art either.

 

[Europan]

I spend much time worrying about sharpness because I’m deeply in macro cinematography at the time. It’s about enough light for small stops, the lenses being pulled out double focal length and more. Since I exclusively shoot on film, no stacking

 

[pdeeh]

So is everyone who wants sharpness obsessed with it? Are the same amount of people obsessed with dreamy soft images and is that better?

Dunno.

Sharpness is a crutch that mediocrity leans on.

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?

Photographic mastery demands that you be able to achieve critical sharpness at will and also that you be able to achieve unsharpness (through motion or through defocus) at will

Who is "Photographic mastery" and why is he (or she) going around demanding these things? Cheeky fecker.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I believe it was Ansel Adams who said "There's nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept" or something to that extent. There's certainly something deeply attractive about a very sharp image chock full of detail. And there's nothing wrong with producing a razor-sharp, hyper-detailed image. And if that's the look you're going after, by all means do what you need to do to guarantee the look. Where some people run into problems and cross over into the realm of worrying and obsession is when sharpness becomes an end in itself instead of a means to an end. The folks who will judge an image superior because it has all ten zones represented in the print and displays 1:1 detail reproduction despite the fact that the composition is off and the subject itself is boring.

 

[blockend]

I aim for sharp enough in my photography. With the exception of a couple of cheap zooms, all my lenses provide what I require, and even the poor ones serve a particular purpose. More important than absolute sharpness is consistency, including relative sharpness, contrast, definition and so on. I've yet to take a photograph that relied exclusively on sharpness for its appeal, even in larger formats.

I certainly don't see the point in spending large sums on fancy lenses, but if I shot digit@l professionally I can see why you'd need a lens that could withstand extensive cropping and still stand up on a billboard. If the shot holds up in a book or a 12 x 8" print, I'm good.

 

[tomfrh]

I worry about sharpness a lot less now that I'm shooting film and making darkroom prints.

Sharpness is a secondary concern for me. I find that if it's in focus its generally sharp enough!

That being said, I don't like grain at all!