Why so many photographers are anxious about sharpness?

[Q.G.]

I think it a non-question.
Anxiety doesn't come into it. Only common sense.

If i want to record the smile on someone's face, i don't want to end up with a fuzzy blur that leaves me guessing whether the person was smiling or frowning.
Same for any other subject.

Having equipment and techniques at our disposal that can indeed deliver the level of sharpness we want, we can always get less sharpness. If and when we wish.
If all we have are equipment and techniques that cannot deliver the needed sharpness, we're up the proverbial stream of brown smelly stuff.

So guess what would be the sensible thing to look for.

 

[André E.C.]

I like my images sharp, I love to see well rendered elements in a photo, that little distant detail, utmost clarity.

Now, is this related with technique? Following of pre-established rules? Mentor adoration?

Not at all, I just like it that way and as I photograph for myself, not for others, I do what I like and I like it sharp, razor sharp.

True, I admire the work of E.Weston, Paul Strand, Minor White, Caponigro, Siskind and few more, did I based my own photography on their ideas or concepts?

Again, not at all, yet I like the sharpness inherent to their work, I'm indeed a modernist, I don't care about pictorialism and yes, those fusy, grainy images don't tell me absolutely nothing, for me and again, only personnal taste, photography "starts" in the modern era.

 

[archer]

I will answer for myself and compare a sharp lens to a fine piece of wood. As an artist who works in wood would want the best piece of wood to start with a fine piece of furniture or sculpture. It is then his choice to make of it, rustic and unfinished or perfectly smooth and finished. The material imposes no limits. So to, a sharp lens gives the photographer the choice to render his vision accordingly. The photographer can always diminish the sharpness for effect but cannot do much to sharpen an unsharp image if it is needed for a different effect. I for one, want the sharpest lens I can reasonably afford to use, as it offers me more options to realize my vision. Sharpness for its own sake is of no value if the vision itself is unclear and not realized.
Denise Libby

 

[Sirius Glass]

With good optical equipment, one can make the photograph as sharp or soft was they want. With poor optical equipment, one cannot make the photograph as sharp was they want, for all the photographs will soft everywhere.

I find that if I am looking at a group of photographs that are too soft where they should be sharper, I will stop looking at them as they do not appeal.

Steve

 

[erikg]

I don't think the OP was talking about the decision between what is depicted as sharp or as soft, but the obsession or anxiety some people find themselves in chasing after greater and greater sharpness. There is often a concurrent doubt about whatever they are using at the moment, "maybe lens x will be better..." where better means sharper in this photographers mind.
I don't think that is a very healthy approach, if only because "is it sharp enough?" is usually the wrong question.

Oh, and thanks PVia, for the HCB quote. I wasn't actually looking for it, but I figured it would show up at some point during this discussion.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

I think you mean MTF, Modulation Transfer Function, MFT means Micro Four thirds System.

 

[Existing Light]

I think of sharpness as a creative tool. I buy the sharpest lenses I can afford, but I dont worry about a "better" sharper lens that I cant afford or cant use on my camera.

When I want something in sharp focus, I know my lenses can do it, but they can also make something soft or out of focus equally well.

BTW, I've taken pictures with my Holga that I like better than my Canon with it's 70-200mm L lens

 

[cdowell]

I also like fly fishing, but don't understand or care about much of the technical discussion that surrounds it. I may grow into a level of understanding that makes it more interesting to me in the future, but it's all secondary to fishing. And I think everybody involved agrees on that.

In the meantime, if you've got to talk, might as well talk about what you're interested in. Camera lenses are as good a topic as any other. As long as you remember that while you're talking some artist with a borrowed Holga is out there doing meaningful work...

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

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

Sorry to bother you with my silly questions.

I hope you didn't read my answer as a dismissal of your question; I actually meant this in a good way. I would be truly interested for someone to take such an approach towards sharpness. It's such a common topos of photographers, especially amateur ones, that it deserves some homegrown sociologizing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Where is it sharp?

http://artiseternal.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/1-edward-steichen-thepondmoonlight.jpg

 

[Dali]

I would like to redefine my original question…

When I talk about anxiety, this is because of the numerous pictures posted on the Net for which comments are mainly focused on sharpness. Is it the original standpoint of the picture author, maybe yes, maybe not, but it is certainly the expression from the posters of their anxiety about their photographic approach.

It is as if the translation into a picture of the alleged qualities of a lens was the raison d’etre of some photographers… The subject is no more the photographer and the experience he wants to share but his gear and his skill to use it. The recognition among the photographers community is no more done through any “artistic” contribution but through a “consumer” approach.

Last, I don’t want to say that sharpness is not necessary but it seems to me that it is too often the only feature which justify a lot of pictures and worse, the only feature a picture is judged from.

Let’s praise the photographers…

 

[hvandam2]

The sharpness of a photo is just one characteristic of many that we must be aware of in the artistic medium of photography. We should at least understand what it is and how to manipulate it for our purposes.

As a musician, I have played music with folks who cannot read the stuff printed on the page. Some of these people are excellent, but not being able to read music severely limits what they can do and who they can play with. For many this is not a problem, but some lament that reading music would open more creative places for them. Being able to read music gives one more flexibility.

It is the same with sharpness, acutance, densitometry or any other characteristic of photography. If you understand the thing, you can use that understanding to your benefit, to help you create the image you want. I would rather understand everything I can about the medium, and then choose those characteristics important to me for a given photo.

Does this mean one cannot take great pictures without a lot of knowledge? No, but the knowledge gives one more tools, more options.

 

[mmcclellan]

Personally, I've always been a sharpness fanatic with max depth of field. Can't remember the last time I saw a painting or sculpture in soft focus!

For me, it's all about the vision and the best way to convey "what I saw" is with the utmost clarity so there's no interference in the communication. Not sure if that makes sense, but while I have seen a few out of focus pics that I liked, the number of sharp ones I like vastly exceeds that number.

Late to the discussion . . . .

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There are two approaches as far as I can tell.

1. Making pictures that sell. There are some marketing geniuses around that manage to produce pictures that sell by the boat loads. I don't know what their inspiration is, honestly, or if they are just lucky in that they like to photograph what sells.

2. Making pictures that come from your heart. Who is to explain what comes from the heart? To me, observing a photograph is as much an emotional journey as it is an appreciation of the form and the actual content. Pictures that touch me can be razor sharp from corner to corner, or they can be intentionally out of focus - in the whole picture.

Whatever carries the picture forth. So, I wish that photographers, printers, and viewers of photos can be open minded about the creation of the artwork. If someone really likes their pictures pin sharp, then I'm definitely OK with that, and I will view the pictures and determine whether I think it works or not, but in an objective and open minded way. If someone likes to shoot pinhole photographs, or zone plate, I try to be equally open minded about that. It is the understanding and appreciation of different approaches and ways to work that I think is the foundation of respect among artists and craftsmen.

My opinion is that too many photographers obsess over sharpness, or even the absence of it like we have seen lately with petzval and various soft focus lenses. But then there are photographs where it might be super important exactly where the focus lies, like macro photography, or portraiture. Some like their landscapes 'moody' and fuzzy, while others like them tack sharp, appreciating every detail captured. Both are 'correct' and definitely neither approach is wrong.

I have attached two pictures here. One where focus was critical, and another where it was basically unnecessary. The out of focus picture was definitely boring and not interesting to me in a sharp version of it. It was cluttered and less symbolic of a restful place in the sun. The moth took a great deal of patience to get the focus just right.

Whatever sharpness makes the picture work, is the correct sharpness to use. That's my 2 cents, and how I roll.

 

[23mjm]

99% of the lenses made to day have adequate sharpness, obviously some are more sharp than others. The ones who obsess over sharpness are the ones who's pictures are so boring and mundane that all you can really say is "wow it sure is sharp" if the picture has a great subject, great composition, and wonderful light no one will be looking or caring about the sharpness if it is adequate.

 

[Arvee]

99% of the lenses made to day have adequate sharpness, obviously some are more sharp than others. The ones who obsess over sharpness are the ones who's pictures are so boring and mundane that all you can really say is "wow it sure is sharp" if the picture has a great subject, great composition, and wonderful light no one will be looking or caring about the sharpness if it is adequate.

I agree. Spending the $$$$ for highly rated lenses is justified if you are routinely making 16X20 prints from 35mm negs and want adequately sharp prints. Part of what my instructors used to say, "...if you can't make 'em good, make 'em big."

But if you are printing 5X7 through 11X14 from 35, most lenses will be fine and the majority of folks couldn't tell whether a smaller print is made from a 35 neg shot with a Leica or a lesser brand.

My personal preference goes to Tessar construction and I routinely print with 4 el. lenses because they give the aesthetics I prefer.

 

[unclemack]

Professional users of images require it... constructive enough?

 

[pgomena]

When I started to build my own LF system, I chose one brand of lens. I learned to use it to the best of my ability. I now own a half-dozen lenses by the same manufacturer. I did not choose on basis of MTF curves or any other objective measure of image quality. They all deliver plenty of sharpness for my needs, they all behave in similar ways and have a consistent look. I have heard all kinds of arguments about how one brand of lens is sharper than another, how no modern lens with a pentagonal iris makes an image with good "bokeh", etc. etc. etc. I just cant indulge in all the the mental m**********n. There's enough room in the realm of creative photography for each of us to have a unique look, a fresh approach to subject matter, and tools good enough to do the job. Yes, sharpness is required for professional work. So is good lighting, composition, and technical mastery of the craft. These days, creative use of softness is also a requirement for a lot of advertising. Sharpness alone is not enough to make a picture a great picture. I've seen a lot of perfectly sharp, perfectly awful shots. I've even made a few myself.

Peter Gomena

 

[Arvee]

IMO, sharpness is clinical. Softness is sexy. Sex sells!

My .021367,

 

[Ed Sukach]

There are two approaches ...

Excelent post, Tom. My opinion, totally ... make the "total" $0.04.

2. Making pictures that come from your heart. Who is to explain what comes from the heart? To me, observing a photograph is as much an emotional journey as it is an appreciation of the form and the actual content. Pictures that touch me can be razor sharp from corner to corner, or they can be intentionally out of focus - in the whole picture.

This is what I do.

.... Whatever carries the picture forth. So, I wish that photographers, printers, and viewers of photos can be open minded about the creation of the artwork. If someone really likes their pictures pin sharp, then I'm definitely OK with that, and I will view the pictures and determine whether I think it works or not, but in an objective and open minded way. If someone likes to shoot pinhole photographs, or zone plate, I try to be equally open minded about that. It is the understanding and appreciation of different approaches and ways to work that I think is the foundation of respect among artists and craftsmen.

WELL said!! Where can I enlist in the movement?

 

[Dali]

I agree with you, Thomas. Everyone is free to express himself through pictures whatever is the result (sharp, blurred, etc...).

My point is that sometimes there is no expression or when there is, it is lost in sterile and pseudo-technical considerations.

I don't consider myself as an exception. I remember (a long time ago) when I started photography, I was member of a photo association. One day, I came to a weekly meeting with what I then considered as good pictures. I presented them and explained how I did them, lens, film, developer, bla bla bla... Everything was alright until someone asked me: "what do you want to express through your pictures?". I then realize they were maybe technically OK but also "mute" as I was to answer. That night I realized that photography goes way beyond the picture...

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I used to be a sharpness fanatic. I wanted everything f32 and hyperfocal, and only Zeiss lenses would do. Then as I started doing more and more large format work, I realized how clinical it was, and how limiting. If I'm shooting landscapes, I'm still likely to shoot at smaller apertures, but cityscapes, portraits and human figure work don't always (or ever) jive with that aesthetic. I'm much more concerned now with getting that 'snap' between sharply focused and out of focus, and the smooth transitions within out of focus areas. I want my images to see the way the eye sees, which is not a harsh, jarring transition, nor is it always everything sharp. I want to control focus to drive the emotional impact of an image where I want it to be.

As to the point made earlier about being able to tell if something is lacking craft, the only sure sign of lack of craft in an image is inconsistency of images. If one is contrasty, another flat, a third somewhere in between, some need spot-toning and others don't, some are grainy and others smooth as butter, there had better be one hell of an artists' statement at the front of the show to justify that or else I'll see it as lack of craft, skill and vision. I've seen prints by some BIG names where certain technical details were not attended to to the extent I would have been satisfied with, but I'd still buy them if I had the $5K available, because the artistic vision is so complete that the image totally supersedes any technical niggles. They're sharp where they need to be, soft where they don't, and I want to look at them over and over again.

 

[clayne]

David Vestal:

"For example, 8X10 inch contact prints from 8X10 negatives by Edward Weston and Ansel Adams give such a strong sense of sharp exactness that they have become classic examples of photographic sharpness. Yet an analytical look at some of these prints shows soft edges and mushy textures of which any good 35mm photographer might be ashamed. Nevertheless, the pictures feel miraculously sharp because the *seeing* of these photographers is clear and unconfused, overcoming all the technical deficiencies. Part of this clarity is in contrast: Weston and Adams hardly ever let matching tones meet edge-to-edge in their pictures. The separation may be subtle, but it is almost always extremely clear.
*The sharpness that counts most* is more in the eye and mind than in the negative."

The Craft of Photography, pp. 56

That about says it all.

But it doesn't say anything about the actual image itself or what it means - it's still hard locked on the technicality of it. This is what the entire point of thread is about.

Adams and Weston can keep on making 8x10 contact prints for a million years (if they were able) - but if the content is boring or doesn't say anything - it's just a sharp print and that's it.

The other flip-side here is the viewer. If the viewer cannot overlook technical issues and/or derives photographic value from issues such as sharpness, grain, etc. then I'd say that the viewer needs to recheck their priorities as well.

When has quality photography ever not been about the photograph saying or conveying something - be it emotional or revealing?

 

[keithwms]

I think I said most of what I wanted to say way back in post #10.

But I will just offer one additional comment about detail. One of the aspects I most enjoy about photography is the recording of lots of detail. Photography can record even more detail than I was able to see, when I composed the photograph. That is one of the things that makes a slide or a print enjoyable to me... the ability to revisit the scene and see new things each time. The composition is the same, but the detail... there is always more.

Of course, lots of detail isn't a requirement for a great photograph, hence neither is lp/mm sharpness. But the detail photography can provide is a very special characteristic, with many artistic advantages. The level of detail really distinguishes photography from the other visual arts.

So it's a bit unclear to me why an artist interested mostly in broadbrush details and expressing their own thinking would invest themselves in photography. That makes about as much sense to me as a painter working with a microscope with a 10 micron brush. However, I do reserve the right to disagree with myself on this last point, at some future time.

 

[Galah]

But it doesn't say anything about the actual image itself or what it means - it's still hard locked on the technicality of it. This is what the entire point of thread is about.

Adams and Weston can keep on making 8x10 contact prints for a million years (if they were able) - but if the content is boring or doesn't say anything - it's just a sharp print and that's it...When has quality photography ever not been about the photograph saying or conveying something - be it emotional or revealing?

Adams and Weston are sharp and they are boring. When looking through books of their work, especially Adams, I have been constantly struck with the feeling that, though the printing is often striking (a bit like digital PP today), the content is often very "ordinary", especially with regards to composition.

Similarly, much of the PP'd digital imagery, these days, is perhaps technically brilliant (all that sharpness from the bottom to the top of the frame, the HDR, the saturated colours, the perfect cropping) but it looks totally unreal (un-lifelike): reminds one of a painting done in acryllics.

But, hey, I'm just the little boy who can't appreciate the Emperor's finery.:rolleyes: