Why so many photographers are anxious about sharpness?

[Arvee]

Keith...

I used to love the detail recorded by good equipment until it was pointed out in print judging that my work was 'way too busy' and took away from the subject matter/message.

I migrated toward 'selective focus' (as Flying Camera described) to emphasize/de-emphasize those elements in the print for the most emotional impact. I also like being able to use contrast in printmaking for emphasis where applicable.

I guess I used to be a 'gearhead' but after attending classes I have a whole different perspective on the photographic process.

 

[keithwms]

I used to love the detail recorded by good equipment until it was pointed out in print judging that my work was 'way too busy' and took away from the subject matter/message.

That can certainly happen. I understand. But it's more an issue of composition than sharpness, right? Some compositions call for lots of detail, some do not. Certainly many (most?) of us who went from 35mm to MF to LF went through a period of just being drunk on detail... and forgetting how to distill the composition. But detail and effectiveness aren't mutually exclusive.

I am not disagreeing with your experience, of course, and I am glad to read that you found your way to compose.

 

[clayne]

That can certainly happen. I understand. But it's more an issue of composition than sharpness, right? Some compositions call for lots of detail, some do not. Certainly many (most?) of us who went from 35mm to MF to LF went through a period of just being drunk on detail... and forgetting how to distill the composition. But detail and effectiveness aren't mutually exclusive.

I am not disagreeing with your experience, of course, and I am glad to read that you found your way to compose.

Keith, one thing you're not really pointing out is that the type of subject matter you shoot (based off of your gallery) has an approach that differs from what I shoot. As such, I don't need massive detail and "broad strokes" may just be what's proper.

 

[keithwms]

Keith, one thing you're not really pointing out is that the type of subject matter you shoot (based off of your gallery) has an approach that differs from what I shoot. As such, I don't need massive detail and "broad strokes" may just be what's proper.

Oh, good luck trying to find any consistency in what I shoot! But it's true that I do tend to aim for large amounts of detail. What I usually aim for, though, is an uncluttered, geometrically simple composition. There is detail and then there is clutter; these are two very different things.

Anyway, we all shoot different things with different intentions and have different preferences and gear... and some of us take milk in our tea and some don't. Perhaps that should be the disclaimer at the bottom of all of my posts But I still find it interesting that, armed with a tool that was honed to capture detail and in some sense produce detailed paintings, so many photographers actually turn quite sharply away from literalism and incorporate lensing effects that have little in common with how we actually experience a scene. That's not a criticism; I like my bokeh and my swing and my falloff. I simply find it interesting and somewhat ironic.

 

[Dali]

"...and incorporate lensing effects that have little in common with how we actually experience a scene".

What do you really mean? Should we use only 50mm lens (for 24x36) as it is the closest to our perception (at least in terms of geometry)?

 

[keithwms]

"...and incorporate lensing effects that have little in common with how we actually experience a scene".

What do you really mean? Should we use only 50mm lens (for 24x36) as it is the closest to our perception (at least in terms of geometry)?

Actually, I wasn't referring to perspective (although that is also interesting). What I meant is that our eyes refocus so quickly, and our brains put together the separate images so quickly that we usually don't see in-focus / out-of-focus separations with our eyes. E.g. I only see a small amount of background blur when I hold a finger in front of my eye and focus on it.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Keith...

I used to love the detail recorded by good equipment until it was pointed out in print judging that my work was 'way too busy' and took away from the subject matter/message.

I've heard that idiocy 'way too many times'. It's a standard phrase that is routinely deployed by self styled experts (of which there are enough in photography to populate a small country) when they are struggling for something to say that makes themselves look impressive. Read "shut you down". I do not believe that I have ever heard it used constructively, despite the vast number of times I have heard it. How could it be? It's what you DO with the detail that counts. There cannot be "too much" or "too little" detail, but you might use it more or less effectively. Whenever you hear that little comparative term "too" you have a clue. Opinion stated as if it were fact.

If you had been blessed with a sensitive critic, you might have gone in a different direction. I don't mean to say that would be necessarily better than what you did, but it possibly could have been. Perhaps you could have found a direction which could have lead you toward understanding how major form and minor forms can, if used in a way where they support one another throughout the whole space, add up to more than the sum of the parts. Maybe, or maybe not, but there is a lot more to it than how much or little activity you include.

Is the critic talking about your work? or his/her exalted opinion? Big problem -- it destroys much more than it builds.

I saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day: "Cows come and go, but bull is here to stay". Then a large reader board saying: "Honk if you love peace and quiet".

 

[clayne]

Oh, good luck trying to find any consistency in what I shoot! But it's true that I do tend to aim for large amounts of detail. What I usually aim for, though, is an uncluttered, geometrically simple composition. There is detail and then there is clutter; these are two very different things.

Keith, I think that utmost detail from minimum to maximum over the scene doesn't represent reality to the eyes. It's nearly biologically impossible to focus with such a deep DOF like that. I'm not saying shoot wide-open by any means (I don't), but think about things like HDR - and how even though technology might be able to provide us a hyper-detailed advantage, it surely doesn't always look great - and in some cases may even be grating to the or absolutely unnatural to the eyes.

Now there are of course some exceptions to this such a ultra-wide angle lenses, f/32, etc., etc. - but generally when the photo doesn't shout "photography!" it's probably for the better.

However, for the most part I think we see eye to eye on things...

 

[Q.G.]

While this thread is discussing how sharpness and unsharpness can both have their 'artistic' merits as a creative tool, the real answer (still) is that you can use unsharpness with a sharp lens, but there's no way you can wring a sharp picture out of an unsharp lens.

Wanting to have a lens that is capable of real sharpness is not about wanting all your pictures sharp, but about being able to if and when you want.
As simple as that.

 

[Dali]

No, the original question asked why sharpness was so important to some photographers, up to the point they post picture just to show how sharp could be their pictures. They don't discuss about the artistic result but mainly on the alleged technical exploit as if ti fill the void of the approach and to be reassure by some kind of technical foundation (that is why I used the word "anxious").

One story to tell you that I have nothing against sharpness when it is the result of a artistic approach:

I worked several seasons for a gallery and we received and exibited some work from a Swiss photographer. These were lanscapes showing mainly chalets and meadows. Nothing exceptional by itself except that these LF pictures were so sharp and well printed that they looked like windows on Swiss countryside. It was a very strange feeling.

There, the overall sharpness was an added value and was serving perfectly the photographer's intention. Not living anymore in Switzerland, he wanted to bring an piece of native soil with him through his pictures. He wanted them to be more reality than representation.

I did not ask him about his gear and nobody cared...

 

[Mike1234]

Sharpness and blurriness are VISUAL TOOLS. Use them wisely to express YOUR VISION which is yours and yours alone. There are a million ways to "see" a cat.

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Great thread and it feeds the mindset I've had over the last year.... I used to be one who made images where everything in the frame was sharp front to back. Some may have worked, I felt a lot of them did not as there was no sense of depth or atmosphere. After I started playing with funky lenses and shooting a lot more images wide open, I came to appreciate the way our eyes see things. A series I've been working on called 'Layered Light' is about seeing more depth in the scenes I shoot, where the OOF areas are just as relevant as the in focus areas. While not for everyone, this way of image making has literally opened up a dfferent way of 'seeing' to me. Our eyes do not see everything sharp front to back. Our eyes move around a scene and focus on certain areas, while in our peripheral vision, there is a lot less detail and a lot of out of focus elements. Our other senses provide the context and rationalization of what we see. Our brain recognizes key data that 'explains' the scene for us. Using older lenses like petzvals or the Great Wall lens on my medium format rig wide open has made for a shift towards simpler images, and uncluttered, more pictorial type shots. To me this is liberating in a way I'd never imagined. I know everything has been photographed and done before, but soft and fuzzy with a little bit of sharp is to me, the new black!

Of course YMMV, and each to their own!

A.

 

[Ian Grant]

Sharpness isn't just about lens definition & DOF, there's also the creative use of shutter speed, so you can introduce movement into images particularly landscapes with judicious choice of speed to create mood & feeling

Ian

 

[keithwms]

Keith, I think that utmost detail from minimum to maximum over the scene doesn't represent reality to the eyes. It's nearly biologically impossible to focus with such a deep DOF like that. I'm not saying shoot wide-open by any means (I don't), but think about things like HDR - and how even though technology might be able to provide us a hyper-detailed advantage, it surely doesn't always look great - and in some cases may even be grating to the or absolutely unnatural to the eyes.

Yeah, agreed. And I think the point is that as a matter of perception, our eyes don't really see "prints" at all. The eyes see individual components of a scene and then integrate them into scenes (as just restated by Andy). Hence most people don't perceive out-of-focus regions at all, after they glance around a scene. A print is very different: it represents a whole scene with one DOF applied. So it's more like one of the many snapshots of a scene that is captured by the eye and processed into what we ultimately perceive.

So... just for the record, I'm not saying that the eye is a pinhole There is a lens in there and an effective f/#, the thing is that it varies continuously via the pupil reflex. It's a very fancy lens. (and there's no glass in it!)

The very interesting thing (to me) is that one case in which our eyes can clearly see both in-focus and out-of-focus regions is at very close focus, i.e. at the near point of the eye's focal accommodation. E.g. holding an object in front of your eye. So that effect is hard-wired into our brains to be associated with a close-up, macro scene. Hence the miniaturization effect that is now en vogue with swing photography. (At least, that is my theory for now)

Anyway I think we can all agree that focus choice, whether it be shallow or front-to-back sharpness or whatever, needs to work with the composition. There's nothing wrong with any choice of DOF... it just may not be appropriate for the composition.

However, for the most part I think we see eye to eye on things...

<drum><cymbal>

 

[keithwms]

I've heard that idiocy 'way too many times'.

...

Is the critic talking about your work? or his/her exalted opinion? Big problem -- it destroys much more than it builds.

Agreed.

Of course, it's useful to hear critique, and we all should be willing to listen when people take the time to review our work, but... frankly, if somebody told me an image is too busy because of my choice of DOF, I really don't think I'd take it seriously. I have heard that, and I have heard that I have too much negative space, and I have heard that my colours aren't quite right, and, and... whatevah! *I* shot it.

 

[Alan Johnson]

So many photographers are anxious about sharpness because they bought the kit lens.

 

[df cardwell]

"but there's no way you can wring a sharp picture out of an unsharp lens"

Sure there is. Weston did it. Adams and Stieglitz did it. Even in their day, they weren't using what was a 'sharp' lens.
Pictures look sharp, but it was all technique. Sharpness is an illusion. You can make a single cell of a Protar or Dagor cut like a razor if you know what you're doing; you can make a fresh-out-of-the-box Apo-Egonon look like a soggy marshmallow if you don't.

Sharpness is to photography what volume is to music.

It isn't that I am against 'sharp pictures'; I'm against arbitrary regulation that says a picture has to be made a certain way, or look a certain way. If you take pictures to make show detail, cool. You telling me I have to do the same ? Wrong.

Now, I've been putting together sort of a Zeiss-Wild-Wollensak-Frankenstein large format macro camera for about 20 years, because it amuses me to make platinum prints of dry leaves and stuff in curling season when a long walk in the woods is sometimes a sketchy proposition. If you want to talk numerical aperture and Köhler illumination, we can do that. Believe me, I can DO sharp. But even with a massive photomacroscope, it isn't about lines per millimeter, it is about storytelling and emotion.

 

[Q.G.]

Sharpness is to photography what volume is to music.

No, it isn't.

Sharpness is to photography what frequency range is to music.

Plug up your ears with wax, and listen to Mozart (or whoever). See how you like it when all you hear are muffled middle and low frequencies.

Now i'm sure a composer can be found who would be able to wring a good sounding bit of music out of a stunted frequency range.
And my hat off to him or her!

But does that make composers who do use the full range to make their music sound good composers with an unreasonable desire for sharpne... uhm... frequency range?

 

[erikg]

I think any musical analogies are tortured. Music unfolds over time, the comparisons will never quite fit. A photograph is like a photograph, it's not really like any other art. I agree with DF that when we are talking about making pictures it is "about storytelling and emotion." Description is an element of storytelling and sharpness is one way to control description in a photograph. How much is enough? That is for the artist and the viewer to decide.

 

[Ian David]

Has anybody mentioned that most people with cameras (even fancy cameras) are not really artists? (Some of them even realise it too!)

Loads of people, especially men, are into photography because they like the gear, and are fascinated by what it can do. It is no surprise that a lot of photographers are engineers and scientists (and vice versa). Some of these people are no doubt properly called artists, but many just love the fact that this little machine in their hands can render all the finest details of a complex scene with sharp fidelity. There is nothing at all wrong with that approach, but in itself it has nothing much to do with art.

It is easy to make the mistake of assuming that everyone who talks about cameras or photography on a photo forum is, or wants to be, an artist. I think much confusion arose from the battle to have photography recognised as a form of art. When the battle was won, it became common to assert that "yes, photography is art". But really it is just one of many mediums that may be used to create art. Not all art is photography, and not all photography is art.

As far as art is concerned, as has been said above, sharpness may or may not be necessary, depending upon what the person making the art has in mind. There are no rules (but there probably is good and poor art).

Ian

 

[erikg]

Very true, Ian. And most of those folks don't obsess over sharpness, God bless 'em.

 

[keithwms]

As far as art is concerned, as has been said above, sharpness may or may not be necessary, depending upon what the person making the art has in mind.

Yes, I agree with this statement about art, broadly defined. But again... isn't it at least a wee bit ironic that the artistic medium most capable of rendering detail (photography) is often not used for that purpose?

N.b. I am not saying that sharpness is necessary for an effective print or slide, it's just a bit of an historical irony, the way I see it. People worked for so many decades/centuries to capture and preserve more and more detail...

Another related irony is the use of LF and ULF cameras, which are capable of capturing truly awesome levels of detail, to implement swings that throw almost the whole image out of focus. I think I can reconcile that by saying that the level of detail is needed to get the smooth tonality and smooth in-/out-of-focus transitions. Something that people sometmes forget is that lenses need to be "sharp" (or more properly stated, have lovely MTF) to produce pleasing transitions to out-of-focus elements.

Not to ignite format wars, but... it's really hard (or at least expensive) to get really smooth in-/out-of-focus transitions in smaller formats.

 

[2F/2F]

While I hate to draw metaphors between photography and music (as they are always "not quite right", and mean absolutely nothing to anyone but a studied musician), frequency range is most certainly a terrible metaphor for sharpness. Frequency range is contrast or tonal palette, not sharpness. Sharpness would be the equivalent of how a note or phrase is enunciated...and different ways of enunciating notes (like different levels of sharpness) can be employed by both composers and musicians, and will have different effects on how the work is received.

 

[Mike1234]

I often find myself at a loss of understanding in threads like this dealing with such personal and subjective criteria. I want (the sharp parts) of my images to be razor sharp. If I want parts of an image blurred I make that happen. If I want everything center to corner and front to back as sharp as possible I do my best to make it so. if I want a very narrow band of sharpness I do that. And I'm not even mentioning PS... ooops...

 

[clayne]

While I hate to draw metaphors between photography and music (as they are always "not quite right", and mean absolutely nothing to anyone but a studied musician), frequency range is most certainly a terrible metaphor for sharpness. Frequency range is contrast or tonal palette, not sharpness. Sharpness would be the equivalent of how a note or phrase is enunciated...and different ways of enunciating notes (like different levels of sharpness) can be employed by both composers and musicians, and will have different effects on how the work is received.

What he really meant was "brightness" of sound. Music (sound) is actually a damn good metaphor for light and how it works.