The myth of sharpness and the relative (un)importance of it.

[London Headshots]

Since everyone always tries to win these kinds of debates with "Well, Generic Professional Photographer X shoots like THIS, so it must be OK!", I'll add another quote:

Andy Warhol said "A good photograph should be in focus, and of someone famous".

Not verbatim, but then Oscar Wilde said "a gentleman never quotes correctly", so it's OK.

But, pointing to the methods of an established professional as a way of validating ANY art form is ridiculous.

Razor sharp images are important in many areas of photography, especially commercial and advertising. If I present a client with a shot that's out of focus, especially some of the more demanding creative directors I've worked with recently, then I probably wouldn't get hired again.

While sharpness doesn't make an image, if every shot you take lacks perfect sharpness at the point of interest, the chances are that you aren't very good at using a camera, since sharpness is probably the easiest thing to do with a camera these days.

But regardless, it's still important, because a sharp image is easier to retouch and offers far more creative options.

Hyperrealistic portraiture and hyperrealistic compositing in general is also something where extreme sharpness from front to back is of critical importance in making the shot believable. If shooting with medium format especially beauty headshots, sharpness is as important as lighting, as retouching out of focus skin is an absolute nightmare at times.

And the OP said that nobody cares what body or lens you're using, only just last week I was sitting in a briefing with an advertising agency, and got asked what camera I was shooting with.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Since everyone always tries to win these kinds of debates with "Well, Generic Professional Photographer X shoots like THIS, so it must be OK!", I'll add another quote:

Andy Warhol said "A good photograph should be in focus, and of someone famous".

Not verbatim, but then Oscar Wilde said "a gentleman never quotes correctly", so it's OK.

But, pointing to the methods of an established professional as a way of validating ANY art form is ridiculous.

Razor sharp images are important in many areas of photography, especially commercial and advertising. If I present a client with a shot that's out of focus, especially some of the more demanding creative directors I've worked with recently, then I probably wouldn't get hired again.

While sharpness doesn't make an image, if every shot you take lacks perfect sharpness at the point of interest, the chances are that you aren't very good at using a camera, since sharpness is probably the easiest thing to do with a camera these days.

But regardless, it's still important, because a sharp image is easier to retouch and offers far more creative options.

Hyperrealistic portraiture and hyperrealistic compositing in general is also something where extreme sharpness from front to back is of critical importance in making the shot believable. If shooting with medium format especially beauty headshots, sharpness is as important as lighting, as retouching out of focus skin is an absolute nightmare at times.

And the OP said that nobody cares what body or lens you're using, only just last week I was sitting in a briefing with an advertising agency, and got asked what camera I was shooting with.

You miss the point...

to sum it up, obsessing sharpness will hinder your progression on this photography journey. Enjoy your gear and not lust after the next one. Obviously as a profession, a degree of clarity and quality of work is a necessity, especially in a commercial environment. At that level of work sharpness will be a pre-requsit if not a given anyway.

I never said be happy with all blurry out of focus images. At the same time, just enjoy what you have.

 

[gramps]

Razor sharp images are important in many areas of photography, especially commercial and advertising. If I present a client with a shot that's out of focus, especially some of the more demanding creative directors I've worked with recently, then I probably wouldn't get hired again.

 

[joescrivens]

Enjoy your gear and not lust after the next one.

When did you change your mind on getting the 5dMark3 ray



p.s. you got one ordered yet?

 

[Raymond Lin]

When did you change your mind on getting the 5dMark3 ray



p.s. you got one ordered yet?

When i have enough money.

I am in no hurry to get it, the reason i want it is not because it takes better pictures, it is because it should help me to miss less shots.

 

[woof woof]

Photography can be arty but it can also be geeky and I'm sure that it attracts people from artist to geek and every degree in between. All of my working life I was in technical roles mostly in computing and wider electronics but I also draw, paint and write songs and poetry. I have on my pc shots that I'd call arty and also shots that mostly appeal to the geek although there is in the view of many an artist art in the mundane, stark and even visually displeasing. There's room for all. Generally though I'd probably agree that too much emphasis is place on sharpness... but sharpness can be an aim and even an art in itself.

What I'd like to see more opinion, even passionate opinion. Too many people seem almost afraid to express opinion or if they do they feel the need to justify what they've said and express respect for a completely opposing view. Give me more of the sort of stuff I read in Luminous Landscape reviews and reports and, more Ken Rockwell's.

 

[Starastin]

Part of me agrees, one only has too look in the equipment section and read the "upgrade" threads, upgrading way before the posters talents have hit the buffer of their kit, but I guess a lot of us are guilty of that at one time or another.

The obsession with super,razor sharp images baffles me at times. I regularly see, wildlife especially, shots that are way over sharpened. But I guess that is down to personal preference, as is photography in it`s entirety I suppose.

Marketing,marketing . without it we would all still be using nikon fe with 50mm prime and digital back... oh !!! wait !!! I just wet myself from that thought

 

[simon ess]

Been thinking about this a lot.

Here's my take on it, given that I'm an enthusiastic, slightly obsessed, amateur hobbyist.

I could write a thesis, but I'll stick to the main points.

First, photography is so fluid and so versatile and so varied it can appeal to all styles and all approaches.

Techno - geek? Great, get the sharpest, most technically perfect image you can, and enjoy.

Artist? Great, move me with your art.

Obsessed with perfection SOOC? Great, do your thing.

Love processing? Great, do it.

Pro? Great, all that matters is what your client wants.

And all points in between.

Marketing? They know their job, that's for sure.

 

[ernesto]

One way of checking how important it is is to go through your collection of photos that you consider the better ones. Then see if they are all the sharpest photos or if they happen to be the most interesting/best composed with okay sharpness or a mixture of both.

I tend to change cameras with the weather as I think I just like buying them/trying them etc,. (not alone there!) so I have a very broad range of photos using cameras from £50 to £800. Some of my favourites were with the £50, some with the £800 and some in between. As the sharpness and general IQ relates fairly well with the value then that is telling me that while I like to see a sharp photo when studying it on a large monitor, a lack of sharpness does not remove a photo from my favourites.

 

[wavefront]

If I present a client with a shot that's out of focus, especially some of the more demanding creative directors I've worked with recently, then I probably wouldn't get hired again.

I also don't think you'd get hired if your portfolio contained poorly composed, lacklustre, badly lit shots even if they were pin sharp. Foremost, CD's will be wanting you to respond and deliver to to a creative brief. It's the story that's the most important part, not the sharpness everyone chases.

(As an aside if you showed out of focus shots to a CD, they would just see your inability to use a camera

You make a fair point though, that in the commercial world they will expect ultimate sharpness *but* they will also expect you to get the composition, tones, lighting, look, mood and a multitude of other creative things right too, way ahead of sharpness.

In a briefing, I don't think the first thing they say to you is. 'Ok, the concept of this image is to be pin sharp. At the comers, and at the centre. At 500% magnification. We also like this type of lighting on this sort of colouring and not sure what model or pose we're using but we'll deal with that later as its not important, just first make sure it's sharp.'

Sharpness is important, but only if the creative building blocks are in place first.

 

[Circuit Hero]

Bickering aside, I think you're all hitting towards the idea that there are more elements to an image than simply 'x'. Whether that 'x' is the sharpness, the kit that was used, the photographer and whether he/she is famous...

You're all using extreme examples to prove your points (i.e. sharp images with no thoughts to composition Vs out of focus images), but everything you're talking about is important. As photographers, we should all be striving to achieve that perfect image. If I get everything right but the point of focus I wanted has been missed, then it will get binned; I won't use my creative licence to lie about why I "intentionally" missed it. Equally, if it's technically perfect but there's no life/soul, it will get binned.

The image should be viewed as such, not as a wish list of expensive kit or a history of shooting famous people and publishing books or quotes. You should have enough strength in your own opinion to justify what you like or don't like about an image, regardless of any baggage that image might carry.

I've seen images taken on here by amateurs that are infinitely more appealing than ones I've paid to go and look at it in a gallery.

 

[weybourne]

Bickering aside, I think you're all hitting towards the idea that there are more elements to an image than simply 'x'. Whether that 'x' is the sharpness, the kit that was used, the photographer and whether he/she is famous...

You're all using extreme examples to prove your points (i.e. sharp images with no thoughts to composition Vs out of focus images), but everything you're talking about is important. As photographers, we should all be striving to achieve that perfect image. If I get everything right but the point of focus I wanted has been missed, then it will get binned; I won't use my creative licence to lie about why I "intentionally" missed it. Equally, if it's technically perfect but there's no life/soul, it will get binned.

The image should be viewed as such, not as a wish list of expensive kit or a history of shooting famous people and publishing books or quotes. You should have enough strength in your own opinion to justify what you like or don't like about an image, regardless of any baggage that image might carry.

I've seen images taken on here by amateurs that are infinitely more appealing than ones I've paid to go and look at it in a gallery.

I think that misses the point too - it's not whether a photo is in focus or not, but whether concentrating on having the mkII version of the L glass instead of the mkI, having the latest body to be released 'to attain that extra sharpness', or a new starter feeling that their work is sub-standard because they haven't upgraded from the kit lens, takes over from and overshadows the creative process.

 

[Circuit Hero]

I obviously haven't worded it very well, but I was inferring that the equipment was one of those elements that shouldn't be taken into consideration when judging an image, and that no one factor was more important than another.

 

[Alastair]

I think people are confusing in focus and sharpness.

Bump..

 

[specialman]

......obsessing sharpness will hinder your progression on this photography journey......

Personally, I'd say if this is the case then you're a certain kind of person who is probably overly self-critical of your work but looks towards equipment for the answer and not to themselves as a stumbling block in the imaging process.



I can totally see why someone who wants to photograph birds for example will upgrade from their 'kit' 70-300mm lens to something high-end like a Sigma 120-300mm. Regardless of whether they're actually reaching the limit of their equipment, the benefits of better glass, a wider maximum aperture and probably better AF are easy to see in use. However, many people never actually use the lens they aim to upgrade to but when you look at a shot taken on a high-end lens you do see the additional sharpness over the cheap lens. But this is a more 'extreme' part of photography where specific kit WILL get you an improved image even if you haven't actually improved yourself.

I do question those people though who have something like a Nikon 18-70, a fine example of a kit lens, but they crave after something lie a 16-85 because it has a bit more focal range, but more commonly suggested, that the VR function will be of massive benefit. Personally, I feel that's a misguided view, especially when the actual optic isn't an improvement in general - the additional price for the 16-85 is to cover the VR functionality. However, going from the 18-70mm to say, the 17-55 because you require a constant maximum aperture has thought behind it and despite whether or not the photographer actually has the full set of skills yet, thinking this way is a step to improving and the faster lens WILL give the photographer more power to learn.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Some times sharp coverage is needed over the whole field.
I would be unhappy if I could not offer that when it was important.

Even out of focus areas are improved by a high quality optic.
Qualities such as distortion and CA are better resolved in high quality lenses.

A poor quality lens can be a real handicap.
A high quality lens can be softened as needed.

The better the starting point the more options you have.

 

[Ed Sutton]

There's as sharp as possible given the limits of technology, and there's sharp enough for one's particular purposes. It all depends what you photograph and why if these are one and the same.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Personally,


I do question those people though who have something like a Nikon 18-70, a fine example of a kit lens, but they crave after something lie a 16-85 because it has a bit more focal range, but more commonly suggested, that the VR function will be of massive benefit. Personally, I feel that's a misguided view, especially when the actual optic isn't an improvement in general - the additional price for the 16-85 is to cover the VR functionality. However, going from the 18-70mm to say, the 17-55 because you require a constant maximum aperture has thought behind it and despite whether or not the photographer actually has the full set of skills yet, thinking this way is a step to improving and the faster lens WILL give the photographer more power to learn.

I bought my 40D with an 18-55 kit lens. I was shooting building construction at the time.
To say the least I was very disappointed with the quality. It was "certainly not bad" but it was certainly not up to the job. With in the week I had ordered the 17-55 f2.8 which proved "very good" and entirely suitable for the work at hand.

At the same time as I bought the camera and kit lens, I bought the 55-250 which I thought might be useful. I very rarely use long lenses and I have never used it in earnest. However it is "not bad" for the price and would be "good enough" if I ever needed that range.
It was certainly expensive enough to sit in my stock bag for a few years, waiting for that off chance it would be needed.
I still have the 18-55 kit lens sitting in my stock bag. If ever I had an emergency or needed a lens to use where it could get damaged, it will be sitting there waiting.

 

[Silent-Sam]

I think there is room for the geeky techy people to live alongside the abstract. There may be a point where they learn from eachother.

 

[weybourne]

I think there is room for the geeky techy people to live alongside the abstract. There may be a point where they learn from eachother.

Brilliant post

 

[Alastair]

Possibly one of the reasons for differing views on this subject is the myth of the tribe Photography.

The label "photographer" can only really apply to ownership or use of the gear, so perhaps that's why gear and its performance becomes a dominant topic of conversation. We've not much else in common.

Photography is a broad church and prone to schism, there will be those that want to capture the artistic intent of pictorialism, those that reject anyting but the sharp representationilsm of Group f/64, those that don't know or care about any such current or historical movements associated with taking photographs.

We're not all on the same photographic journey.

 

[HopefulM]

for anyone that doesn't believe a non sharp image can be beautiful and inspiring, go get the Annie Leibovitz book Woman, and have a good look at the Sigourney Weaver image...

But taking a nice sharp shot when required is important too.

The OP has a very valid (and well put) point not to let sharpness outweigh creativity in our photographic journey

 

[Silent-Sam]

 

[joxby]

I'm s0 glad I don't have to make these types of threads any more..

There are a lot of people missing the point of this thread, muddying the waters with client talk, I shoot this for so and so and it has to be this sharp.
Its not about what clients want, I don't even feel the difference between miss-focus and lens sharpness is relevant, its much simpler.

Sometimes it doesn't matter that the photo isn't perfectly sharp or even sharp at all, its impact, its effect on the viewer and the thoughts it provokes are all far more important than any one measurable technical element.
Photography for me is not about what clients want, it might be the beginning and end for some people but its too narrow a field of view imo.

 

[Noah_]

I can understand that technical features of a photograph come secondary to artistic value but I have the freedom to feel this way being an enthusiast photographer rather than a professional. Having said that, I'm a self confessed lens lusterer!

 

[Noah_]

Well, take photos. Think less about gear, they are merely a tool. Think of the story of the photo. Photography is an art, treat it like one.

I like that quote :}

 

[specialman]

....Sometimes it doesn't matter that the photo isn't perfectly sharp or even sharp at all, its impact, its effect on the viewer and the thoughts it provokes are all far more important than any one measurable technical element.
Photography for me is not about what clients want, it might be the beginning and end for some people but its too narrow a field of view imo.

I'll remember that when I'm shooting a rig-tying sequence or some images of how many maggots are being fed

...............................................

Seriously though, there does seem to me that there's some photographic trip to Utopia that I've not been invited on.... all this talk of photography being an art and it all being about making the viewer feel something.... that's all fair and well when we're talking about certain types of photography but my editors (the client) require images that fit a brief; yes, some will be shots that are designed to set the scene and evoke a response from one angler to another, but many of the images are there purely to illustrate a point clearly (and that also means them being sharp). It's the less glamorous side of what I do....

 

[joxby]

...............................................

Seriously though, there does seem to me that there's some photographic trip to Utopia that I've not been invited on....

b****x, show us the brief for your power station picture.

It looks that way for a reason, and its bugger all to do with briefs, editors or anything else.


and.........the foreground is oof........shoot it again with more sharp

 

[Laudrup]

I could have sworn I saw you bragging about your 24-70 pictures being so sharp they were able to 'cut diamonds' earlier this month Raymond.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I could have sworn I saw you bragging about your 24-70 pictures being so sharp they were able to 'cut diamonds' earlier this month Raymond.

They can indeed lol but I never done a test chart, nor do I worry about it not being sharp, I shot with it before it died...actually it only became like that after it died with ERROR 99, I sent it off to be fixed and it came back sharper. I took it straight into another job and shot with it.

This was like almost 2 years ago, it happened in July 2010.

I do lust after new gear and new lenses, we all do, but I don't spend my time examine them for their faults. I know their faults and limitations and work and push them the best I can.

 

[specialman]

b****x, show us the brief for your power station picture.

It looks that way for a reason, and its bugger all to do with briefs, editors or anything else.

and.........the foreground is oof........shoot it again with more sharp

That shot wasn't for a client.

 

[jerry12953]

Are we talking PHOTOGRAPHY here, or are we talking about GEAR APPRECIATION? While they are linked and do merge into each other they are ultimately two separate things.

Lens quality IS an important part of the photographic process, and getting sharp results really matters to some, especially those in the upper echelons of the profession. But many can produce excellent results and gain a huge amount of creative satisfaction from moderate to good quality equipment. In this sense obsessing about lens sharpness could be seen as a form of arrested development.

But if we're talking about gear appreciation, there's no real need to get out there and make images. If it makes you happy that your lens is the sharpest on the block then fine!

 

[grum]

Forgive me for the armchair psychoanalysis but I get the feeling Raymond may be talking to himself as much as everyone else here.

Funny though, I recently bought a 24-70 2.8 mk I. After reading various whinging about duff copies and problems with it (on other forums), I was expecting not to be too impressed. Took a few test snaps with it and it seems super sharp to my untrained eye - again I didn't use any test charts or anything.

 

[Asha]

I wonder how many members refrain from posting some of their work bacause they feel the shots aren't sharp enough even though the actual image is full of interest.....

 

[Alastair]

Seriously though, there does seem to me that there's some photographic trip to Utopia that I've not been invited on.... all this talk of photography being an art and it all being about making the viewer feel something.... that's all fair and well when we're talking about certain types of photography but my editors (the client) require images that fit a brief; yes, some will be shots that are designed to set the scene and evoke a response from one angler to another, but many of the images are there purely to illustrate a point clearly (and that also means them being sharp). It's the less glamorous side of what I do....

See my earlier comment about the myth of the tribe Photographer..

You're using a camera, but you're not using it for the same reason I am, and neither of us are using it for the same reason as the next person. There is nothing that we have in common other than that we use a camera.

If I interpret you comments correctly, you're an illustrator of articles who happens to use a camera. Whether you used a camera, pen and ink or watercolours wouldn't make much difference as long as your output illustrated the article in a clear manner and met the expectations of the editor and the readership.

I would still argue that sharpness is of secondary importance even for what you do, a long way after making sure that the image showed the point being illustrated in a clear and unambiguous manner that the readership could interpret correctly. Regardless of how sharp it was, if you took a shot of tying a rig and a thumb obscured the knot the image would be rejected.

We are not all on the same photographic journey.

And in the words of the Matrix, "There is no spoon photographer"

 

[Asha]

We are not all on the same photographic journey.

I]

100%

To use the comment in a lighter text, my journey is taking me out into Nice this afternoon to try capture my week 12 shot ......rest assured non of you lot in the UK are taking that same journey....or are you??

 

[London Headshots]

I also don't think you'd get hired if your portfolio contained poorly composed, lacklustre, badly lit shots even if they were pin sharp. Foremost, CD's will be wanting you to respond and deliver to to a creative brief. It's the story that's the most important part, not the sharpness everyone chases.

(As an aside if you showed out of focus shots to a CD, they would just see your inability to use a camera

You make a fair point though, that in the commercial world they will expect ultimate sharpness *but* they will also expect you to get the composition, tones, lighting, look, mood and a multitude of other creative things right too, way ahead of sharpness.

In a briefing, I don't think the first thing they say to you is. 'Ok, the concept of this image is to be pin sharp. At the comers, and at the centre. At 500% magnification. We also like this type of lighting on this sort of colouring and not sure what model or pose we're using but we'll deal with that later as its not important, just first make sure it's sharp.'

Sharpness is important, but only if the creative building blocks are in place first.

I don't see your point; this is a thread about the importance or unimportance of sharp images. CD's require many things, but this thing is about sharpness.

 

[joxby]

That shot wasn't for a client.

That's good because....

Its not about what clients want......

 

[specialman]

......If I interpret you comments correctly, you're an illustrator of articles who happens to use a camera. Whether you used a camera, pen and ink or watercolours wouldn't make much difference....

I don't fancy drawing half the stuff I photograph.... it's bad enough committing it to 'film'