Why so many photographers are anxious about sharpness?

Dali · Mar 3, 2010

Hello all,

I don't want to open a can of worms but... I noticed so many threads in various photo forums on picture and lens sharpness topic that I asked myself: why so many people are anxious about sharpness?

I understand it can be a quality for some pictures but the buzz about it goes far beyond this point...or everyboby should shoot LF! I wonder if being at the crossroad of art and technology, some photographers want to measure their photographic skill through FTM figures... a very reassuring (but false IMO) way to deal with photography (my picture must be sharp because XYZ test says so)... I guess it is part of a general trend which want to rate everything in life (it is good, it is bad, it is better, it is worse, etc...) even if sometimes it is inapplicable (Is Da Vinci a better painter than Velasquez???). Do I miss the point?

Any constructive comment is welcome.

Thanks.

David William White · Mar 3, 2010

wclark5179 · Mar 3, 2010

Here is a URL to peruse over:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/

For my photography, the primary feature I want in focus, sharp, (no not my mind!) are the subjects eyes. The eyes have it and we have determined they are the windows to our souls!

jmcd · Mar 3, 2010

Sharpness can be an effective ingredient in a photograph, and to translate that from operating a camera to the final print a developed skill and proper equipment are required. Unlike the artistic merit of a photograph, sharpness can be measured in a laboratory, so it is easy to get fixated on this one of many variables. Also, some lenses are just not so sharp, and efforts to produce sharp prints from such a lens are in vain.

ic-racer · Mar 3, 2010

Even an intentionally fuzzy negative can be spoiled by unsharp printing technique.

Everyone should shoot LF...at least once

nickandre · Mar 3, 2010

If I'm enlarging my 35mm negatives to 16x20 I want a sharp lens or else they look like mush.

Mainecoonmaniac · Mar 3, 2010

You're right. Styles of photography come and go. When photography first came around, all the phototogs tried to make their work look like paintings. Then the f/64 group came along and started the sharpness paradigm to rebel against the Pictorialist. Things change and I try not to be dogmatic about what should be sharp or not. The craft and technique must serve the art. If not, we're just a bunch of technicians.

Joachim_I · Mar 3, 2010

For me photography is craft. It can evolve into art but still the basics of the craft remain essential. An architect will always make sure that walls are perpendicular where required even if he produces the most stunning and artful buildings. Similarly, I want to have sharpness where I think it belongs. If I don't manage this, for whatever reasons (mostly wind in my case), I will most likely throw away the result.

But I agree it is an intersting question. Many famous historical pictures are not sharp and I still can enjoy them. But probably more so because they are of a certain historical importance. Recently, I visited an exhibition at a local university which showed the photography output of a recent class of graduates from the art school. There were some good ideas but many results were unsharp. I could not enjoy these pictures. Why not learn the essentials of the craft first? It seems the art school does not care about the insufficient technical skills. I do care.

removed account4 · Mar 3, 2010

some people like sharp, some people don't.
i have no problem with either.

keithwms · Mar 3, 2010

Dali said:
why so many people are anxious about sharpness?

Because it is probably the one thing that can be easily quantified in photography. It can be measured, directly, using methods with which most people agree. Some would say that you can even ascribe a price to it.

People generally won't agree on how to quantify tonality, bokeh, etc. Not to mention originality of the art, the aesthetics, the emotional impact, the value of the craft and so forth.... those things cannot be quantified in way that we'd all agree on. Unless you consider the prices of prints to be a good measure! But even then, it's hard to deconvolve all the factors in the price.

2F/2F · Mar 3, 2010

Because human beings tend to be vapid, technically-driven idiots in most areas of interest. It takes a rare person to have anything of substance to say in photography (or any area), but anyone can learn to babble and argue about technique and other minutiae. In short, they do it because it is easy, and usually because it is all they can do. That's my take on it.

mgb74 · Mar 3, 2010

Perhaps the OP is trying to make a point about "sharpness" as reflected in the resolving power of the lens and (as jmcd says) our fixation with that technical measure. As opposed to an image that is in focus and sharp to the naked eye which I suspect we all would agree is necessary.

2F/2F · Mar 3, 2010

mgb74 said:
Perhaps the OP is trying to make a point about "sharpness" as reflected in the resolving power of the lens and (as jmcd says) our fixation with that technical measure. As opposed to an image that is in focus and sharp to the naked eye which I suspect we all would agree is necessary.

I also got the impression that this is what the OP meant...though I would say that what you said is necessary is only necessary if somebody deems it necessary...such as the photographer or the client. The primary and direct goal should be the effect of the picture. This is achieved via the way the picture looks; the secondary goal. Technical goals determine the way the picture looks. Thus, they are tertiary and indirect goals; not something that can deeply define a picture, but something that is used to make up the elements of a picture. They can be described in context of their effect on the way the picture looks, and thus on the effect of the picture, but cannot appropriately be used as the primary criterion to directly judge a picture as to its meaning or effect. All technical critiques of pictures are indirect. IMO.

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Mar 3, 2010

That's the kind of questions which would require a Roland Barthes answer, à la Mythologies.

The problem with sharpness is that it's touted as the Holy Grail of photography: my lens/film/etc contributes to making sharper results than yours, and it's because I have nothing but the best equipment, which in turn is the most expensive.

You could mix in Veblen goods, macho sensitivity, the illusion of progress, etc. to the explanation.

Dali · Mar 3, 2010

Food for thought...

I don't mean sharpness is not a picture element but it seems to me that its contribution is often overstated to such a point that any comment on picture is worthless. Everything is then reduced to a vain piece of gossip about supposed quality of brand X versus brand Y... We are then far from photography or to be more precise, what photography should be according to me. But maybe Am I too old school???

Dali · Mar 3, 2010

Yes Michel, I might need to re-read Mythologies (I should have it somewhere...).

Sorry to bother you with my silly questions.

Joachim_I · Mar 3, 2010

Seems I misunderstood you. Most of the brand X vs. brand Y stuff is simply for entertainment. Dont take it too serious. I don't know anyone who is obsessed with a brand. Even in the Leica forum (almost) everyone will admit that you can get similar results with a Cosina lens. People have preferences and like to articulate them. Nothing wrong about it. By the way, this has nothing to do with being old-school or not. People were already arguing about Zeiss vs Leitz or Ernemann vs Voigtlander before you were born.

Arvee · Mar 3, 2010

Dali,

In school, my instructors always ragged on us about getting something meaningful in your prints and quit worrying about the technical/equipment issues (they did insist on proper technique, but beyond that...).

And, in the end, when we put our best prints forward for judging, the ones with something meaningful to say always beat the 'sharp, technically correct, and mundane' prints.

So, yeah, it is a fixation on something that is not necessarily a required element of a truly good print.

Bruce Watson · Mar 3, 2010

Dali said:
Hello all,

I don't want to open a can of worms but... I noticed so many threads in various photo forums on picture and lens sharpness topic that I asked myself: why so many people are anxious about sharpness?

It's easier to talk about equipment and technique than it is to talk about the reason to photograph in the first place. It's easier to correct your technique than it is to develop and articulate your artistic vision.

It takes a fair amount of courage to study and dissect your own photographs, and even more to put them in front of others for review. To put them on display is to risk rejection. Most people would rather do almost anything than take that risk.

But once you go through the equipment and technique phase, once you've worked your way through all the learning curves and become competent at the craft, all that's left is learning how to use the craft to express your vision. Which forces you to examine your vision to learn what it is what you want to use the craft to say.

And that's a whole lot scarier than talking about MTF curves let me tell ya.

2F/2F · Mar 3, 2010

Fred Aspen said:
And, in the end, when we put our best prints forward for judging, the ones with something meaningful to say always beat the 'sharp, technically correct, and mundane' prints.

So, yeah, it is a fixation on something that is not necessarily an required element of a truly good print.

I do not like the idea that a sharp, technically standard print has either something meaningful or nothing meaningful to say just because it is sharp and technically standard...and that a mushy, grainy, out of focus one has or does not have something meaningful to say just because it is mushy and grainy and out of focus.

A picture either has or does not have "something meaningful to say". The technical matters are simply the elements that are used to make the picture that either says or does not say it. If you want to discuss these elements, go ahead. They are worthy of discussion. However, do not use them to directly define the meaningfulness of a picture, and/or as the primary method of doing so.

Existing Light · Mar 3, 2010

a few years ago, I posted a picture in a myspace photography group similar to this one (http://www.keithcarterphotographs.com/) by keith carter. Pretty much everyone told me to work stop using auto focus because my camera focused on a tree in the background instead of the person in the foreground. They also told me I needed to get a digital camera because film will be gone withing 5 years.

If I had a scanner worth a shit, I'd post that picture. Unfortunately, I scanned the print at the school I attended at the time. since I graduated, they dont want me using their equipment because the students need to use it. My scanner/printer is crap, and anything below zone 4 is rendered almost pure black

Edit: The lens was a 70-200mm F/4L lens on a Canon K2. Lack of sharpness isnt an issue unless I or the auto-focus doesnt focus properly.

Edit 2: I usually prefer good sharpness in my prints unless I'm going for a dreamy, surreal look

Dali · Mar 3, 2010

Bruce, you might get the point. Vision is certainly the most important feature of a picture. I amaze me to see how I can go again and again on the same places and take different pictures. Some might be technically perfect, some less perfect, who should care... The most important is that these pictures tell about me and the way I capture reality. Does it make sense?

2F/2F · Mar 3, 2010

Of course...but to deny that technique is one of your tools, and that how it affects your pix will "affect their effect" is dreaming.

Leighgion · Mar 3, 2010

People want something solid to hold on to and technical details are concrete. You can say your lens is sharper than other lenses with some level of objective backing. Gives a sense of order and certainty when you can make a concrete choice, pay a concrete amount of money, and get a certain concrete benefit.

The artistic value of a photograph (or any work for that matter) is qualitative and can't be measured in a quantitative way. It's thusly a destroyer of linear order, since the neophyte with cheap gear can produce an artistic image just as a veteran photographer with expensive gear can. While experience may hone one's artistic sensibilities, it doesn't do so in any kind of reliable fashion or even necessarily do it at all. The fact is, you could dedicate yourself to photography for 30 years, buy into the finest hardware, practice your technical skills to death and be no better an artist than when you started. You might even be worse, having crushed your finer sensibilities with too much obsession over things like .. sharpness. Technical skill and high quality tools help you be a good technician, but good technique doesn't a good artist make. This is an uncomfortable issue, which likely drives many folk to obsess even more on things like sharpness.

Dali · Mar 3, 2010

2F/2F, I agree but some people are much more inclined to talk about the "container" than the "content"...

Why so many photographers are anxious about sharpness?

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency