Un-Sharpness Movement

[aam1234]

Noticed that a lot of people put too much emphasis on the sharpness of a photo. Some even obsess about it, as if it's the be all end all measure of a good photo. They are entitled to their opinion of course. However, not all photographers subscribe to that notion. Some think that the beauty and the feel of the photograph is what matters at the end.

I would suggest to look at the big picture when all said and done.

[Levon]

I think you are absolutely right.

Having said that a lot of shots that are out of focus, no matter how slightly, are simply missed shots. If you depend on your photography to make a living that sharpness becomes extremely important indeed.

[aam1234]

True. And that's a good point. However, for non-pros, technical aspects shouldn't be the deciding factor.

[jimsolt]

Noticed that a lot of people put too much emphasis on the sharpness of a photo. Some even obsess about it, as if it's the be all end all measure of a good photo. They are entitled to their opinion of course. However, not all photographers subscribe to that notion. Some think that the beauty and the feel of the photograph is what matters at the end.

I would suggest to look at the big picture when all said and done.
Sharpness is definitely not the end all be all determination of a good photo. In fact they sell lenses and filters designed to create soft focus. Many "aging movie stars" were always shot in a soft focus and they were great photographs.

HOWEVER the soft focus should not be "out of focus". It should be used as a technique much like one uses feathering edges in photoshop or the very popular blurred background. It can be a fantastic feature in some photographs and just plain dumb looking in others where razor sharp images are just what is needed. In fact the two techniques can be very effectively combined at times.

Good photography is not limited to xeroxing life in its minutest detail. It is a way of recording art.

And I don't for a moment consider being an amateur or a beginner to be an excuse for shooting out of focus and calling it OK, or feel the mark of a professional to be "my pictures are sharper than your pictures."

You are quite correct in your assumption that "the beauty and feel is what matters."

Jim

[wu_wei0]

It is a way of recording art.

OR maybe arting the record?

[elTwitcho]

I don't know if you're talking so much of an "un-sharpness movement" as you are just good photography which alot of people seem to have tried replacing with peak equipment. Will a sharper lense improve an already excellent picture? Absolutely.

But will a sharper lense make a bad picture good? Will it isolate the subject better or will it say something about the subject or photographer? Will it stir emotions just because it's sharp? Of course not, but we live in a consumer society that puts alot of emphasis on the best cellphones, cars, computers and yes, lenses and cameras. It's only natural people are going to think buying the best equipment is going to make the best pictures, our entire way of life is built on people buying stuff they really don't need anyway, it's an ingrained behavior for the starting photographer to buy that 28-70 F2.8L, it's what *we* do after all.

Like I said, I think it's a movement for alot of new photographers away from what makes good photography, which is still the elements of design and composition much moreso than sharpness. Cartier Bresson, Ansel Adams and probably most of the great photographers of the century made better images than the vast majority of us on equipment that is quite frankly **** compared to what we're using now. That should say something, but it's commonly overlooked by most.

Buuuuut, people have it within themselves to come to their senses and focus on the important elements as they develop their own vision without anyone elses help. I would suggest to as always focus on your own work and let everyone "save themselves" if and when they decide to work it out.

[Big_B]

It is good to be reminded that photography is about more than just technical skill. Thanks aam :)

[aam1234]

It is good to be reminded that photography is about more than just technical skill. Thanks aam :)

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Thanks Sam.

[Scottes]

What about us poor souls who only have technical skills?
:-(

[Big_B]

You've got those?! ;)

[sdommin]

There are two questions to ask yourself about this photo:

1. Would it be better if the exact same photo was sharper?
2. Would you like the "not sharp" photo just as much if you didn't know who the kids were?

[Scottes]

Good questions.

[Big_B]

I know what you mean Scott, but I'm not sure that was the point that Steve was trying to make. I think the argument is for a recognition of the need to balance the two. There is no point in having a technically perfect photo if it lacks any character. Equally a photo may have captured a beutiful expression but this may be lost if the photo is so blurred that you can't make anything out.

My view is that too often, discussions focus on technical niggles and miss the asthetic beauty of photos. A bit of balance is all we need :)

[Scottes]

Why can't we have both? A very well composed beautiful shot that is artistically sharp and in focus where it should be and properly exposed will be a better shot than if any one of those points gets screwed up by the photographer.

I believe in the statement "You will miss 100% of the shots you don't take." But some of the taken shots should be deleted if something's too wrong and never printed if something's a little wrong, but always saved, printed, and cherished if it's the only shot that the photographer - or interested people - has. But having the only shot does not make it a good shot, just a worthwhile shot for the interested parties.

[Levon]

I really have to agree with Scott here. The subject in this photo (your nephew) is out of focus, and there really is no reason that he should be out of focus, especially because to be completely honest the moment and emotion captured is not really that special (I'm sorry, I know I'm ruthless). My feeling is that if you spend an hour with this kid you're going to have a thousand opportunities to get a better shot.

However it is so much easier to clearly judge work that is not our own. I completely understand that you like this shot, aam1234, you're a proud uncle and it seems like a really nice kid. Yet it is with ourselves that we need to be the most ruthless if we want to improve our photography. This is extremely difficult though. I'll show you an example of one of my own shots, that I personally love even though I should really know better:


http://www.levschuller.photosite.com/~photos/tn/1558_1024.ts1129301079796.jpg

This is a candid I took roaming the back alleys of Barcelona one morning. I must tell you that it looks better in print than on a pixeled-down version in a forum message, but you should still get the idea. The composition is fine, the contact with the girl extraordinary, especially since the other children are all in their own world...I definitely managed to take this shot at the 'decisive' moment (feel free to disagree).

Due to there not being enough light though I shot it with a shutterspeed just to slow, causing the girls face to be less than pinpoint sharp. She's not out of focus, but still had she been absolutely sharp this photo would be really strong. As it is I know that 1 out of 2 editors would reject it.

[PhotosGuy]

I think you need the capability of taking a sharp pic when you need it. And you need the judgement to decide "sharp isn't what I want here".
Any pic you take, someone will love it, someone will hate it, others will yawn... :D
;)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/TigerLilly_Split_292.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/MoonbeamCosmos_split_265.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/PhotosGuy/Samples%20-%20General/Seagull-blur_01.jpg

[Big_B]

That last one is wonderful!

[Jon, The Elder]

Yawn - hi Frank.

[CyberDyneSystems]

All excellent points,. but...

For my part I want softness to be an artisic choice,. not an accident of poor skill or tools.

[Scottes]

For my part I want softness to be an artisic choice,. not an accident of poor skill or tools.
Amen.

[aam1234]

Deleted the photo I posted as it's not exactly what I'm referring to. Levon's pic is a better example.

I wasn't referring to pics that have a massive motion blur or hand shake but something that isn't 100% sharp like Levon picture. I see nothing wrong with it and for some it's totally acceptable.

There are many aspects to a good photograph and sharpness is just one of them, if one doesn't get a tack sharp image that's ok IMO especially if the other aspects are good (exposure, composition...etc) and that's all I'm trying to say.

[Maureen Souza]

All excellent points,. but...

For my part I want softness to be an artisic choice,. not an accident of poor skill or tools.

I would like that too, CDS... but i am not skilled enough to always get what I want:D

But I rarely take horrid photos so sometimes I am glad to have the moment recorded than miss it altogether...especially when it comes to my very active little grandson.

Thanks for the reminder aam.

[martin-images]

I agree with aam up to a point,theres much made of pictures that are not tack sharpe, noisy, etc etc but its the overal image that is the important part, the look and composition, but if an image is totaly unsharpe or the conposition is way of then maybe theres a cut off point to what might be acceptable on photos terms, but i always say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" so if you like then nothing else matters, if its up for comment then it might matter, so if your not sure dont post for C&C keep it in the family album :-)
Martin
www.digital-monochrome.com

[Levon]

Warning: Off-Topic!!

Martin, may I just say that even though I am not a big fan of landscape photography, a lot of your photos on your website I find astonishingly beautiful!

[tiziano]

True. And that's a good point. However, for non-pros, technical aspects shouldn't be the deciding factor.

I don't agree on this. Everybody is entitled to decide what is the most important factor to himself. I may love photography for the technical side of it, or for the artistic one, or maybe the emotional.... Or maybe for all of them... who can decide what it most important, but myself, when I take pictures for my own pleasure?

[nosquare2003]

"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." - Henri Cartier-Bresson

[symes]

Time to add my two cents - you have to understand the techincal aspects before you can produce more artistic photos...and that is why there is the obsession with sharpness...before you can actually add a nice soft focus you have to understand how to accomplish that...

All of us are at different levels on the learning curve...

I agree with aam...but I would caution that the obsession is more to do with learning how the skills rather than not allowing for artistic interpertation...

Cheers,

[MTalley]

I agree with all of the above. There is often too much emphasis put on sharpness of an image. Remember, though, that many people coming from the P/S world (myself included) see the first few somewhat soft images out of their new DSLR and wonder if they just blew a wad of change on something that looks worse than the camera they just replaced. I'll admit, until I found more information on why this occurs, I was questioning my purchase decision.

With all that said, however, let's all remember this conversation when critiquing photos of a more artistic nature. Not sure how many times I've seen the following statement: "That would be a good looking picture if you ran it through some noiseware and applied some USM..."

Excellent image sharpness does have its place at times, though. Sports photographs come to mind immediately.

[Sean-Mcr]

Bresson said that "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" anybody who's seen enough of his work will know that he meant it. This is one of his most celebrated photos http://fototapeta.art.pl/IMG/hcb/HCB3.jpg if not the most

He never always intended to blur his photos ect. The style and nature of his photography would just lead to it at times, but it never got in the way of the final image

[cmM]

everyone agrees with everyone, yet still debating... :-P

An artist sometimes will use a very small brush and sometimes splash some paint on the canvas, depending on what he is trying to express through his art, therefore both sharpness and softness have their place. The ratio depends very much on style.

You like sharp photos, fine!
You like soft photos, fine!

...just be aware of your style, stick to it, and represent yourself as an artist in the most creative way you can find.

[blinking8s]

i think when learning technical skills are extremely important, understanding your camera and how things work, following general rules to produce solid by the book photographs is important, when you feel you know these skills, you move onto using your tech skills to throw things off a bit, get a little crazy, place that silloutte shot in the shoot because you know it helps the message, use DOF to you're advantage, know when using motion blur and panning can help or make things worse


its all a system, and you earn you're way through the system

[Levon]

i think when learning technical skills are extremely important, understanding your camera and how things work, following general rules to produce solid by the book photographs is important, when you feel you know these skills, you move onto using your tech skills to throw things off a bit, get a little crazy, place that silloutte shot in the shoot because you know it helps the message, use DOF to you're advantage, know when using motion blur and panning can help or make things worse

its all a system, and you earn you're way through the system

On the contrary, I think technical skills are extremely overrated.
I am a very instinctive shooter and I let the technique follow me rather than the other way around.
This works very well for me. It has been less than two years that I have first picked up a camera, but already my work is being exhibited (at big venues) and I start getting a couple of contracts here and there.

Indeed one thing that I notice when I compare amateur photographers to pros is that a lot of amateurs focus way too much on the technical aspects of a photograph and don't grasp the 'seeing' part. Of course you need some basic technical know-how, but what is most important is what and how do you see, how do you point your camera, and when do you pull the trigger.

To get back to the original point I don't mind (a little bit of) motion unsharpness that much...Out of focus is a no-no, but in low light conditions I often prefer to shoot something at 1/10th of a second instead of using a flash, I prefer natural light and the mood it gives. You have to be careful in doing this though, the image needs to be really strong to make up for it's lack of sharpness. Often one (myself included) ends up making excuses for the lack of, whereas really it weakens the photo to the point of it being s*#t. And if I come back from a shoot and none of my images are sharp it would mean that I messed up big-time. So I still aim to take as sharp an image as possible, but whenever possible not at the expense of the natural light.


Cheers,

Levon

[Levon]

Bresson said that "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" anybody who's seen enough of his work will know that he meant it. This is one of his most celebrated photos http://fototapeta.art.pl/IMG/hcb/HCB3.jpg if not the most

He never always intended to blur his photos ect. The style and nature of his photography would just lead to it at times, but it never got in the way of the final image

When talking of the sharpness of his photo behind La Gare St Lazare what is important is that nothing is out of focus, and it is definitely sharp enough. Had it been more unsharp than the photo would not have worked.

What you say is definitely true though. The style and nature of street photography sometimes leads to some motion-blur - you always work with the available light and you shoot on the fly, reacting to sometimes unpredictable situations, actions, compositions. But the images that you can capture on reportage shooting real life have such an impact that if well composed and taken at the right moment that impact compeletely overcomes a (small) lack of sharpness.

And while we are touching this subject, take this candid I took a coulple of weeks ago as example. I would have liked the subject to be crispy clear and sharp, but things happened so quickly that I only had time to compose and shoot. You could (successfully) argue I missed it, but I like the composition and timing a lot, and I personally am quite happy with it the way it is. What do you all think?
http://www.levschuller.photosite.com/~photos/tn/1583_348.ts1129642992109.jpg

[aam1234]

And while we are touching this subject, could I have your critique on this candid? Is there anybody bothered by it's lack of absolute sharpness?


I'm not bothered at all. love the pic.

By the way, I checked your gallery and you have some great photos there. Excellent work.

[Scottes]

Out of focus is a no-no...
Ya know, I think that this statement really sums it up for me. If the subject is out of focus - or worse, if something else *is* in focus - then that loses the picture for me.


Below is one of my favorite shots, shooting a pair of Black Skimmers flying barely above the ocean, right around dawn:
http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/Skimmer_53069-2.jpg
That was 1/13th shutter on a 400mm lens. That's one-fiftieth the speed I should have used. If I had even been thinking about technical aspects - which I almost always do - I never would have even attempted this shot. But I saw the birds and reacted, turned focused and shot.

Hell yes, it's unsharp. But it's not a mistake. The focus was just about perfect - more on the body than the eye - and the panning technique was almost perfect. I'm so very glad that I didn't have time to think about the technical aspects before shooting.


So I'll lay out a couple thoughts that I know have after going through this thread.
1) Out of focus is a bad thing.
2) Making a kistake is a bad thing (but it depends on the mistake).
3) Unsharp photos are OK, as long as #1 and #2 are OK.

[cosworth]

1) Out of focus is a bad thing.
2) Making a mistake is a bad thing (but it depends on the mistake).
3) Unsharp photos are OK, as long as #1 and #2 are OK.



Good lord, these are so close to Asimov's three laws of robotics. They ring quite true for Photography as a whole especially now in the DSLR age.

[Sean-Mcr]

When talking of the sharpness of his photo behind La Gare St Lazare what is important is that nothing is out of focus, and it is definitely sharp enough. Had it been more unsharp than the photo would not have worked.

What you say is definitely true though. The style and nature of street photography sometimes leads to some motion-blur - you always work with the available light and you shoot on the fly, reacting to sometimes unpredictable situations, actions, compositions. But the images that you can capture on reportage shooting real life have such an impact that if well composed and taken at the right moment that impact compeletely overcomes a (small) lack of sharpness.

And while we are touching this subject, take this candid I took a coulple of weeks ago as example. I would have liked the subject to be crispy clear and sharp, but things happened so quickly that I only had time to compose and shoot. You could (successfully) argue I missed it, but I like the composition and timing a lot, and I personally am quite happy with it the way it is. What do you all think?
http://www.levschuller.photosite.com/~photos/tn/1583_348.ts1129642992109.jpg



Can't help but lke it;)

Great work by the way on your site:)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Good lord, these are so close to Asimov's three laws of robotics. They ring quite true for Photography as a whole especially now in the DSLR age.
\
:lol: You geek you! :lol:

that's awesome..

[wingd]

I think it does depend on the photographer and what is bieng photographed. I think the difference is knowing when you take the picture if you want it soft or sharp. If you did it the way you want it then that was your intent and you should stand by your intent and people may not like the photo but they will not critisize you for it bieng soft other than thier personal preference to have it sharp as long as you convey that you intentionally shot the image soft. The main diference is that you know consously the difference between the two. There is however a big diference between soft and out of focus. When a image is soft the edges are normally the soft and the center is more in focus. True this can be done with photoshop but its more personal taste. IMHO.

[nosquare2003]

Equipments are tools. Technical skills are methodologies. What do they serve then? I would say "my subject".

I consider sharpness, soft, selective sharpness, out of focus to be some of these different methodologies. It depends on my subject - which may be tangible or abstract. (I do not eliminate out of focus as it may do well for my abstract subject.)

Just one different personal opinion here.