Obsessed with sharpness?

I

ianjmatt

Messages
255
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Have developed the fun (but annoying for my wife) hobby of buying up lots of old photographic books from second hand shops. I am currently the excellent 'Light and Film' from the Time Life series and something struck me.

In looking at the photographic examples in a lot of these books elements such as noise, film grain, creative focussing decisions etc are all seen as valid means of expression in photographic art. There seems now to be an overemphasis on 'sharpness' as the first test of a picture's quality.
 
I think it depends on the type of photo, a more 'artistic' photo may lend itself to some of the elements that you mention but other types really need to be sharp and clear. A pic of a stag, for example, in the early morning mist can look absolutely stunning without being sharp but a closeup of the same stag during the day would look poor without being sharp.
Similarly check some in the street photography thread, some look great even though 'grainy' because of the 'gritty' evironment but which would look odd in other settings.
 
Another way of looking at it is that if you can get the best possible image out of the camera then it becomes fit for any purpose to which you might put it, even if that use involves degrading the quality of the image but specifically in the case of sharpness that includes enlarging the image. You can't retrofit quality so it's good practice to do the best job you can in the first place.
 
Sharpness is over-rated.. at the risk of being controversial, it's the first resort of the creatively challenged photographer.

There's a lot of very sharp but deeply uninteresting photographs about. If the only comment somone makes about one of my images is, "that's sharp", I know it's a crap image. It's the equivilant of reading a novel, and at the end of it only being able to say that the spelling was good.
 
Alastair said:
Sharpness is over-rated.. at the risk of being controversial, it's the first resort of the creatively challenged photographer.

There's a lot of very sharp but deeply uninteresting photographs about. If the only comment somone makes about one of my images is, "that's sharp", I know it's a crap image. It's the equivilant of reading a novel, and at the end of it only being able to say that the spelling was good.
Click to expand...


Thats an incredible generalisation I do Football Railways and assorted types of landscape,if their not sharp they go in the bin before I even start looking at composition etc
 
As technology develops expectations move on. If you look back to the 1960s and some of the leading photojournalism of the time the pictures are far from sharp and I'm sure you could pickout several flaws in the images.

However the most important thing is to capture the moment.
 
Alastair said:
Sharpness is over-rated.. at the risk of being controversial, it's the first resort of the creatively challenged photographer.

There's a lot of very sharp but deeply uninteresting photographs about. If the only comment somone makes about one of my images is, "that's sharp", I know it's a crap image. It's the equivilant of reading a novel, and at the end of it only being able to say that the spelling was good.
Click to expand...

+1.

I used to be asked to judge photoclub contests fairly regularly when I was a staff snapper.

Boy, the comments I used to get when I gave a prize to a nicely composed, original, interesting shot that may have been a touch soft, rather than yet another close-up of a fishing boat on Sidmouth beach with all that lurvely sharp grain...in mono, natch :bonk:

Sure, getting it in focus is vital, and with modern kit even at entry level there is no real reason not to, but there is more to it than that.

Worth noting (again!) that jpeg has a softening effect on files, so pretty much any image will benefit from a bit of PP sharpening. I prefer to do this out of the camera if time allows as it can be applied selectively rather than the same to every image.
 
Alastair said:
Sharpness is over-rated.. at the risk of being controversial, it's the first resort of the creatively challenged photographer.

There's a lot of very sharp but deeply uninteresting photographs about. If the only comment somone makes about one of my images is, "that's sharp", I know it's a crap image. It's the equivilant of reading a novel, and at the end of it only being able to say that the spelling was good.
Click to expand...

Tend to agree with this. Ansel Adams said that 'There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept'. Sharpness is not the be all and end all, and can be influenced by all manner of things - quality of the lens, how steady the photographer holds the camera, size of the print, amount of sharpening applied in post processing, depth of field, depending on which element of sharpness the image has or doesn"t have
 
I agree.

Look at the works of Brassai for instance, marvelous shots, but dark and grainy and soft a lot of the time, but photographically far better than anything I could wish for!

I think the problem is, if a lens is inherently soft, it comes with other unpleasant issues as well.
 
A picture doesn't need to fulfil any technical points to be good. All it needs to do is trigger an emotional response in the audience for which it was intended. Technical aspects will only ever really be discussed in photography societies and Internet forums. I am not saying that because my photos are crap, honestly! ;)
 
Alastair said:
Sharpness is over-rated.. at the risk of being controversial, it's the first resort of the creatively challenged photographer.

There's a lot of very sharp but deeply uninteresting photographs about. If the only comment somone makes about one of my images is, "that's sharp", I know it's a crap image. It's the equivilant of reading a novel, and at the end of it only being able to say that the spelling was good.
Click to expand...

+1million.

There are 'sharp' photographers and there are 'good' photographers. Of course the 'good' photographers often make images that are sharp and some of them that make none that aren't.

If only the 'sharp' photographers could realise how much money they could save by not worrying about having the newest, highest resolution bodies and the biggest, fastest, most nano crystal multi spangled whatsit coated bispherical constructed lenses and just getting out and shooting.

But according to Nikon if we don't have great lenses we are all crap anyway.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Thats an incredible generalisation I do Football Railways and assorted types of landscape,if their not sharp they go in the bin before I even start looking at composition etc
Click to expand...

Sorry Nigel, but because of this, I decided to bin this.
Only joking of course, but you see where this can get you.
 
All depends on what you are shooting, a couple wont be to happy if they get there wedding pics and half of them aren't sharp i know my sister wasn't when she got hers, same can be said for Photo Shoots etc. But for general photography, something i have snapped on a day trip out for example, then to me it doesn't matter if it is slightly off in sharpness as the memory of the day is still there, but then i bin any shots i get of my kids that aren't sharp
 
sharpness has the same importance as 2 guys arguing about how much faster is their car but yet they drive only on public roads.
 
I like my images to be infocus and the focused areas to be sharp. if this is not the case then there us a problem with the lens.

sharpness is an important lens quality and should not be discounted by anyone.

some lenses like a lens baby are obviously discounted lol.
 
DannyDMR said:
All depends on what you are shooting, a couple wont be to happy if they get there wedding pics and half of them aren't sharp i know my sister wasn't when she got hers, same can be said for Photo Shoots etc. But for general photography, something i have snapped on a day trip out for example, then to me it doesn't matter if it is slightly off in sharpness as the memory of the day is still there, but then i bin any shots i get of my kids that aren't sharp
Click to expand...

Not entirely true, I would have agreed with you if you said MOST couples wouldn't be happy and I dont think anyone would be happy if shots that the photographer intended to be sharp weren't but to make a sweeping generalisation like 'wedding photography must be sharp' puts you in the boring sharp photographer group I'm afraid.
 
Starastin said:
sharpness has the same importance as 2 guys arguing about how much faster is their car but yet they drive only on public roads.
Click to expand...

Not really a good example.

I have a very fast car, which I take on track days, as do a lot of people who own such cars, and the performance can be safely enjoyed that way. And even on the public roads you can have 'fun' with them.

And even so, I can't see how this relates to a discussion about the importance of lens sharpness?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Not really a good example.

I have a very fast car, which I take on track days, as do a lot of people who own such cars, and the performance can be safely enjoyed that way. And even on the public roads you can have 'fun' with them.

And even so, I can't see how this relates to a discussion about the importance of lens sharpness?
Click to expand...

Good man Jim :thumbs: I stopped doing track days when I sold the Subaru. But I still enjoy making good progress, and trying to drive well in my V8, even if it's only to Tescos (sometimes take the scenic route) :D

And it makes a good point. I think photography can be enoyed at several levels. There's the artistic aspect, the craft and skill, and then there's the technical/equipment side.

They are all enjoyable and equally legitimate IMHO, and sometimes you get lucky when all three come together.
 
I think Hoppy's comment is spot on.
I know several people who have gone back to film; they talk about enjoying the whole aesthetic of producing the image, from shutter to print, not just the technical side.
I don't think focus is very high up their list of priorities.

As an illustration - I went light painting with one of them and was messing around with a laser pointer to set focus; she wasn't interested. She said that it was long exposure so focus didn't matter (I think I was being baited but I'm not 100% sure). She experimented with double exposures using light painting to achieve an even exposure, she wasn't at all bothered by the technical stuff.
My photos are sharp with a competent composition, but her photos really convey what it felt like to be in a overgrown leadworks ruin at night!
 
HoppyUK said:
Good man Jim :thumbs: I stopped doing track days when I sold the Subaru. But I still enjoy making good progress, and trying to drive well in my V8, even if it's only to Tescos (sometimes take the scenic route) :D

And it makes a good point. I think photography can be enoyed at several levels. There's the artistic aspect, the craft and skill, and then there's the technical/equipment side.

They are all enjoyable and equally legitimate IMHO, and sometimes you get lucky when all three come together.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: Sums it up in one!
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
I think Hoppy's comment is spot on.
I know several people who have gone back to film; 1they talk about enjoying the whole aesthetic of producing the image, from shutter to print, not just the technical side.
I don't think focus is very high up their list of priorities.

As an illustration - I went light painting with one of them and was messing around with a laser pointer to set focus; she wasn't interested. She said that it was long exposure so focus didn't matter (I think I was being baited but I'm not 100% sure). She experimented with double exposures using light painting to achieve an even exposure, 2she wasn't at all bothered by the technical stuff.
My photos are sharp with a competent composition, but her photos really convey what it felt like to be in a overgrown leadworks ruin at night!
Click to expand...
i think this is where a certain kind of pixel peeper have really misunderstood the 'technical' in photography.

1. Clearly choosing to shoot film, and then to enjoy the processing and printing of that film is a 'technical' exercise in itself.

2. whilst you were worrying about fine focus, your friend understood hyperfocal focussing (technical) and how to balance exposures to create an image which even in your view was a technically good representation of the scene she wanted to capture.

Photographs only need to be 'sharp enough', clearly what is sharp enough is dependant on the final use.
 
odd jim said:
Not really a good example.

I have a very fast car, which I take on track days, as do a lot of people who own such cars, and the performance can be safely enjoyed that way. And even on the public roads you can have 'fun' with them.

And even so, I can't see how this relates to a discussion about the importance of lens sharpness?
Click to expand...


ok ! it was more like - my car has 300hp , mine has 360hp . and that's it.

I just find such thing to be just a showoff and it doesn't relate to performance and results.

the car comparing failed.

what I wanted to emphasise is the technical competitiveness etc.

hope it makes more sense now.
 
Last edited:
I understand that there are loads of people who generally are only interested in gear. I too once had a bit of a GAS problem along my "normal" interest in photography and I feel happy that I've cured it .

And yet as I don't blame anyone for gear loving I believe that the creativity is the king.
 
I try to avoid getting involved in this type of thread because I am often too blunt in my posts - however,

Photography is subjective and what is a 'good' shot to one will be slated by another.

Ultimately providing you enjoy your shot, learn from it, (if that is what you are trying to achieve), please the person you are taking it for, etc, then it dosen't really matter IMO.

Rules within photography, an artistic and as already mentioned subjective medium, should be reclassified as guidelines - not 'must comply'.

Does having a better camera make you a better photographer?
 
Starastin said:
ok ! it was more like - my car has 300hp , mine has 360hp . and that's it.

I just find such thing to be just a showoff and it doesn't relate to performance and results.

the car comparing failed.

what I wanted to emphasise is the technical competitiveness etc.

hope it makes more sense now.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, that makes more sense!

Still, with the technical aspect, as per Hoppy's post, when all the aspects come together 9including the technical aspects), thats the perfect image!
 
cyclamens said:
Does having a better camera make you a better photographer?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not, as evidenced by some of my pics, however this idea some seem to be suggesting in this thread that somehow sharpness is the evil of photography is quite clearly rubbish.
If you are desiring a photo with particular artistic qualities then you may well blur, add grain or similar e.g. a 'dreamy' portrait, a speeding racing car or something similar but for the more 'general' photo e.g. bird in flight, locomotive, family group etc, most people will prefer it to be as detailed and clear as possible.
 
gramps said:
Absolutely not, as evidenced by some of my pics, however this idea some seem to be suggesting in this thread that somehow sharpness is the evil of photography is quite clearly rubbish.
If you are desiring a photo with particular artistic qualities then you may well blur, add grain or similar e.g. a 'dreamy' portrait, a speeding racing car or something similar but for the more 'general' photo e.g. bird in flight, locomotive, family group etc, most people will prefer it to be as detailed and clear as possible.
Click to expand...

What you are saying is true for family shots, portraits, weddings etc, but for other forms of photography I think it goes deeper than that. Here is an example:

Wedding Dance by Leonard Freed (1960)

CRI_165404.jpg


Sorry for the poor quality of this scan - the only one I can find online. Although the composition and lighting are essentially what makes this photo, the grain of the image and the exposure that reduces the tones available for details in the face and adds noise are all part of the success of it.
 
Last edited:
ianjmatt said:
What you are saying is true for family shots, portraits, weddings etc, but for other forms of photography I think it goes deeper than that. Here is an example:

Wedding Dance by Leonard Freed (1960)

CRI_165404.jpg


Sorry for the poor quality of this scan - the only one I can find online. Although the composition and lighting are essentially what makes this photo, the grain of the image and the exposure that reduces the tones available for details in the face and adds noise are all part of the success of it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's the 'style' of the photo that lends it to the way it is, indeed as a sharp photo it would not have the same appeal.
However turn the men around to face the camera as a 'wedding group' and I think it would be quite different.
 
gramps said:
Absolutely not, as evidenced by some of my pics, however this idea some seem to be suggesting in this thread that somehow sharpness is the evil of photography is quite clearly rubbish.
If you are desiring a photo with particular artistic qualities then you may well blur, add grain or similar e.g. a 'dreamy' portrait, a speeding racing car or something similar but for the more 'general' photo e.g. bird in flight, locomotive, family group etc, most people will prefer it to be as detailed and clear as possible.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Softness and sharpness are both tools, to be used appropriately.
 
Birds in flight, locomotives and family groups? Ta very much but I'd rather be looking at images of speeding racing cars and dreamy portraits anyway.

As was said previously, plenty of boring sharp images about.
 
Just my opinion. I'm sure there's plenty of folk would like to see your birds trains and family but I ain't one of them.
 
gramps said:
Absolutely not, as evidenced by some of my pics, however this idea some seem to be suggesting in this thread that somehow sharpness is the evil of photography is quite clearly rubbish.
If you are desiring a photo with particular artistic qualities then you may well blur, add grain or similar e.g. a 'dreamy' portrait, a speeding racing car or something similar but for the more 'general' photo e.g. bird in flight, locomotive, family group etc, most people will prefer it to be as detailed and clear as possible.
Click to expand...

It's not evil. Noone has said it's evil.

But if your first thought and priority is sharpness, I contend that you are very unlikely to produce an interesting photograph.

If your first thoughts are about what you want the image to be/say and/or being in the right place at the right time and/or framing the composition and/or catching the quality of light.. then you're far more likely to produce an image that will capture the interest of the viewer.

As with post-processing, I'd always put any consideration of sharpness last in sorting through a collection of images. I would never reject an interesting composition or a decisive moment purely on the basis that it was a bit soft.
 
Alastair said:
It's not evil. Noone has said it's evil.

But if your first thought and priority is sharpness, I contend that you are very unlikely to produce an interesting photograph.

If your first thoughts are about what you want the image to be/say and/or being in the right place at the right time and/or framing the composition and/or catching the quality of light.. then you're far more likely to produce an image that will capture the interest of the viewer.

As with post-processing, I'd always put any consideration of sharpness last in sorting through a collection of images. I would never reject an interesting composition or a decisive moment purely on the basis that it was a bit soft.
Click to expand...

Can't disagree with that except to say that the impression from some here is that sharpness is almost undesireable. My feeling is that unless there is some reason to want a lack of sharpness then it is most desireable.
 
gramps said:
Can't disagree with that except to say that the impression from some here is that sharpness is almost undesireable. My feeling is that unless there is some reason to want a lack of sharpness then it is most desireable.
Click to expand...

Certainly that is not what I am saying.......however, are we differentiating between sharpness and 'in focus'?

In the old days of film the shot was in focus or not - it could be affected during the developing stage by being made less 'in focus'. The term 'sharp' referred only to whether or not the shot was in focus.

With digital imaging it is possible to 'save' a soft focus shot with use of the unsharp mask / sharpening filter etc. Modern post processing is capable of changing a shot completely from it's original inception.

IMO we can lose the joy of photography by endeavouring to always capture the 'technically correct' shot.

I will again state - it's subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top