Obsessed with sharpness?

[Alastair]

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, if you read back I think that impression has come in from the responses to Nigel's comment (and to a lesser extent Danny's) that photos should be rejected if they are not sharp before any thought is given to more aesthetic considerations.

Railway photographs have been mentioned several times, these are an interesting case. If you look at the Railway Herald or any published magazine there's such a defined style of railway photography that it's very difficult to establish any individuality and the photos could all conceivably have been taken by the same person. Contrast that with broader railway art where styles are much more clearly defined, e.g. in the paintings of Terence Cuneo where sharpness (as it could be applied to a painting) is frequently given a much lesser consideration and the emphasis is placed on capturing mood and atmosphere.

 

[Yardbent]

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.

exactly...obviously at weddings, portraits, product shoots, some different criteria apply

but............just posted this in the "Weary" thread

i have a superb book by The Sunday Times on Photo-Journalism

1979 entitled ''Pictures on a Page'' ............320 odd pages A4

prob 2/3 are soft, OOF, grainy, blurry, tilted

but what a story they tell............

 

[AJQS]

Gramps, if you read back I think that impression has come in from the responses to Nigel's comment (and to a lesser extent Danny's) that photos should be rejected if they are not sharp before any thought is given to more aesthetic considerations.

Railway photographs have been mentioned several times, these are an interesting case. If you look at the Railway Herald or any published magazine there's such a defined style of railway photography that it's very difficult to establish any individuality and the photos could all conceivably have been taken by the same person. Contrast that with broader railway art where styles are much more clearly defined, e.g. in the paintings of Terence Cuneo where sharpness (as it could be applied to a painting) is frequently given a much lesser consideration and the emphasis is placed on capturing mood and atmosphere.

Spot on there. Modern Railway photography is so so dull. ( I could include some of my work in that too).

There was a partwork magaizing many years ago (The World of Trains IIRC?) That every now and then had a photography feature focussing on a type of shot, and there were some stunning examples in there.

I guess the trouble is it's one of those things that has to just happen, as you can't bank on perfect lighting or timing with rail.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

The vast majority of railway photography is front three quarter record shots, quite often taken in stations, and normally with a crippling lack of imagination. There are some notable exceptions currently (stuart brown (swiss toni) on here being one of them) such as those in the centre pages of Steam Railway, but really you have to go back to the 1960's to the likes of Colin Gifford to see anything a bit different. Now maybe it's just the quality of the printing in the books but none of that stuff is bitingly sharp!

 

[Oggy]

[heretic] Personally I like my pictures (mostly aircraft and wildlife) sharp. It's not the be all and end all, but it is important to me.[/heretic]

 

[Alastair]

The vast majority of railway photography is front three quarter record shots, quite often taken in stations, and normally with a crippling lack of imagination. There are some notable exceptions currently (stuart brown (swiss toni) on here being one of them) such as those in the centre pages of Steam Railway, but really you have to go back to the 1960's to the likes of Colin Gifford to see anything a bit different. Now maybe it's just the quality of the printing in the books but none of that stuff is bitingly sharp!

Thanks for mentioning Colin Gifford, I'd seen some of his images without realising who he was. Just spent some time researching, and I see that Each a Glimpse is about to be reissued, seems to be highly recommended.

 

[specialman]

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'm late in on this thread so excuse me....

I suppose that the sharpness factor is the first test of s picture's quality comes down to the fact there is so much crap to be viewed. We can all be talk about images being personal to the viewer and what not, but there are a lot of shots that ate questionable ad to why they were took in the first place. I've done my fair share and I cringe at them now because they were so one dimensional and reliant on nothing else but being in focus and relatively well exposed..... The same definitely applies to the TP collective, even if some people daren't admit it.

It's easy to take a shot, look at it and validate its existence because it's sharp, much easier than critiquing composition or quality of light. It's an easy way to please oneself if you don't strive to be that one step better.....

 

[CarolineS]

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.

Excellent point - put your pics on display in a gallery where Joe Public comments on them, unless they are deeply into photography they won't give *@$% about the techie stuff and whether the image is pin sharp etc.

Caroline

 

[cyclamens]

Excellent point - put your pics on display in a gallery where Joe Public comments on them, unless they are deeply into photography they won't give *@$% about the techie stuff and whether the image is pin sharp etc.

Caroline

To the point........but agreed. My wife still dosen't understand why I crit a shot that she thinks is great. Including recent daughters wedding with unintentional backlighting from wall lights in the hotel - I didn't take the shots but am not allowed to comment.

 

[HoppyUK]

Excellent point - put your pics on display in a gallery where Joe Public comments on them, unless they are deeply into photography they won't give *@$% about the techie stuff and whether the image is pin sharp etc.

Caroline

Valid point, and very true.

However, in reality not many pictures fall into that category. The vast majority are glimpsed once or twice by a few, then never see the light of day again as they're hiden away on the hard drive (modern equivalent of shoe box in the loft).

So for all of those folks, there must be some other pleasure to keep us motivated, and that comes at the taking stage, in the techniques employed and the equipment used.

There's even a bit of a backlash against technology ATM, with some people choosing manual focus over AF, film over digital, and old techniques like grad filters when (arguably!) HDR is better. There is a lot of pleasure to be had using finely engineered mechanical and optical equipment, and applying photographic craft and skill.

 

[ChrisGilbert]

It's been an interesting thread this but one thing that comes over to me is that for many people a lack of predictability in the outcome of a shot is the most desirable asset. I can understand that but it's important for me to be able to precisely create the vision I have in my head when I conceive a shot, whether or not I want the result to be either sharp or soft. Do people feel that they don't actually have this control or is it that they simply want to acheive a particular style. And, if so, why not simply use something like a box brownie where the inherent inaccuracy in engineering will get you the result you want every time ?

 

[ianjmatt]

It's been an interesting thread this but one thing that comes over to me is that for many people a lack of predictability in the outcome of a shot is the most desirable asset. I can understand that but it's important for me to be able to precisely create the vision I have in my head when I conceive a shot, whether or not I want the result to be either sharp or soft. Do people feel that they don't actually have this control or is it that they simply want to acjeive a particular style. And, if so, why not simply use something like a box brownie where the inherent inaccuracy in engineering will get you the result you want every time ?

Coming at it from someone who shoots mainly on film, the unpredictability is a part of it. But it is also that using grain, noise and a certain softness can all deliberately add character and emotion to a shot that would otherwise just be a well-taken photograph.

For example, shooting kids playing on a late-summer evening I may want to use a grainy film, pushing the film speed a little as well, and over-expose it to create a sense of the lethargic, lazy atmosphere of such a day. But the shot is probably going to result in less definition because of this - but that is what I wanted.

 

[simonblue]

I dont think a lot of the time it is was photographer choise,it was just the camera, lens,and film he had at the time of taking the photo.

1 In the days of film,once you stared shooting with say a 100 asa film,you couldnt just push asa up,if the light got bad,maybe you would have a 2nd body,but that may of had slower colour film in it,sometime you would just shoot and hope for the best,and out of that sometime great photo would come.

 

[ChrisGilbert]

I dont think a lot of the time it is was photographer choise,it was just the camera, lens,and film he had at the time of taking the photo.

I agree. There is a big difference between appreciating the aesthetic qualities of an old grainy soft print, where we will never know what the artistic intent was of the original photogrpaher, and deliberately seeking to recreate the same look and feel in our own work. Not that there's anything wrong with emulation.

 

[Alastair]

I'm not sure anyone has really suggested that softness is deliberately introduced (except for a couple of comments about "dreamy portraits"), certainly the point that I was trying to make is that softness should not be automatically rejected and sharpness should not be the primary concern when taking the image.

And it's not about emulating old photographs. These were raised as well known examples where it should be clear that sharpness is not neccessary to produce a powerful and/or pleasing image.

Even where sharpness is absolutely critical (forensic or medical photography for example) the primary consideration will be getting the subject into the frame and how to communicate the details that are the purpose of taking the image.. then you set about determining how to make the exposure sharp. There may be technical limitations on how you can achieve sharpness the drive other considerations, but you still have to communicate the story/information that's the purpose of taking it.