Beginner Sharpness versus Art

SsSsSsSsSnake

SsSsSsSsSnake

Messages
9,605
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive been giving some thought to this question titled above.

there seems to be rightly or wrongly or in-between :) a great emphasis on lens sharpness as published by sites such as DXO ,lens tip and others and they are a very useful source of information that can help
one choose a particular lens.

What I've found in my own explorations is that for me personally some photos look great sharp and match the subject well but there is also a very big place for what i can
best describe as painting type photos that give a feeling of the past that are not intrinsically sharp ,in fact can be quite soft but the colour and shade and composition of the photos
are truly wonderful to behold and i guess look less digital say like records versus CD's.

There exists a holy grail of getting ultimate sharpness for many photographers i believe from reading different forums but sometimes one can get so caught up in this its possible to
miss the ability to create great art with a few crayons or even one pencil.

Would welcome other's thoughts on this as i feel I've made a little jump in my photographic understanding though probably not yet my ability.

thanks for reading.
 
When I first started out in photography I wanted the sharpest lenses available (due to the internet research). In time i recognised I didn't need the sharpest lenses to make the most appealing photo! There were typically compromises in weight and size to achieve the sharpest wide open images (unless you're using something like a 50mm Summicron ASPH). For me they just weren't worth the hassle. Stopped down most lenses are equally sharp.

Saying that, The few lenses I kept are sharp at their widest aperture (Mostly rangefinder lenses). So i didn't really get over it. I just stopped caring as much over that minuscule percentage.

For me, it's like buying lots of unnecessary camera gear. Perhaps to most it's a passing phase, but for others it's just as important as the act of taking the photo itself. Nothing wrong with chasing that sharpness or gear, or not! :)
 
…sharpness is a must have when, as a user, you want to do any and every-thing!
However, owning a car or bike does not mean you must be wheeling 24/7. Many
subjects, and/or approaches, and /or artistic intents will require different unsharpness
quality.

Sharpness is a technical must have, but is a not an artistic must use.

EDIT: unsharpness
 
Last edited:
With a title like sharpness versus art it suggests that you have to have one or the other. Any image can be one, or the other, or both or neither.

Having said that, sharpness can be very over-rated, but it all depends on the purpose of the image.
 
would you say there are degrees of sharpness or shall we say qualities of sharpness like Kodiak suggests.or just sharpness and unsharpness,if there are degrees of sharpness then that can be useful i assume?
 
Last edited:
Of course there are degrees of sharpness, some lenses are razor sharp, some are just sharp, some or not

But if a shot is not sharp, there is only so much you can do to sharpen it in PP, if a image is sharp and you want it soft, this in much easier to do in PP, or with the addition of filters/Vaseline etc at the time of shooting
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
•
No harm done, I read my post and, since I have to translate my thoughts from
French to English, I often make mistakes… so I edited my text.

Kodiak
www.kodiakmedia.at
bureau@kodiakmedia.at
Skype: kodiakonline
 
I guess a good example is the HDTV transmissions,it really accentuates if an actor or actress has a poor skin tone for example,showing every crease and line whereas in the less clearer SDTV these don't stand out as much.
 
The issue is that most photographers come to the pastime from a technical rather than artistic perspective.

So it's easy for them to discuss whether an image is 'sharp', but many of them never got to understanding whether an image is 'good' and only a few come close to even a basic understanding of what is 'art'.

So forum critique posts often boil down to 'nice image' and 'it's not sharp', which frankly is pathetic.

Even when we get to the more difficult areas like studio photography we end up discussing the technical rather than artistic side of lighting, it's the nature of the beast.
 
Phil V said:
The issue is that most photographers come to the pastime from a technical rather than artistic perspective.

So it's easy for them to discuss whether an image is 'sharp', but many of them never got to understanding whether an image is 'good' and only a few come close to even a basic understanding of what is 'art'.

So forum critique posts often boil down to 'nice image' and 'it's not sharp', which frankly is pathetic.

Even when we get to the more difficult areas like studio photography we end up discussing the technical rather than artistic side of lighting, it's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Interesting Phil that as a beginner the only thing that interested me was the gear and how sharp or good this bit of kit is,which of course is a reasonable thing to want to know as someone new to
photography but its only now that I'm really getting interested in the art side as a creative part of photography and of course that is going to be different for each individual but I've found myself looking at how light reflects on things and basically i think I'm starting to look for artistic moments as I go about my daily life and its so so interesting
and freeing.
 
I like to put myself in make do with what you have scenarios, countless times I have been Aylestone Meadows and Watermead birding that it just gets repetitive so I will do the same walk but only take a prime, or a lensbaby.. makes a refreshing change.

you would be interested in this guy, also from Leicester.. sharpness is very far from his mind but he uses gear that achieves sharpness then creates the final image PP.. which IMO is best way to do things.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/newsinger/page1
 
Phil V said:
The issue is that most photographers come to the pastime from a technical rather than artistic perspective.

So it's easy for them to discuss whether an image is 'sharp', but many of them never got to understanding whether an image is 'good' and only a few come close to even a basic understanding of what is 'art'.
Click to expand...
From 6:54 if it doesn't open there:


View: https://youtu.be/G-FxGFEq3Ro?t=6m54s


 
We all judge photographs differently, our own and other peoples'. I love some of Tom Woods stuff, some I just don't 'get', but I always find what he has to say about photography thought provoking.
 
Unless we choose to use a soft focus lens. we all tend to take photographs that are as sharp as circumstances allow.
How ever sharpness rarely defines a photograph.
In almost every case the handling of light and the subject matter is more important.

Many of the " Great" photographs from history and up to the present day were not especially sharp.
Nor were many of the "Greatest" photographers known for the sharpness of their work.
Cartier Bresson's work was notable for its near lack of critical sharpness.
While others Like Bill Brandt Made more use of Tonal contrast than actual sharpness to create his images. (though most had great depth of Field)
 
I must say I have very little interest in sharpness. In fact, it never think about when looking at my own photos or photo books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top