I have a question? Sharpness of an Image and Camera Body n Lens and more

[ErrolEPhotography]

Does a photo really need to be sharp? I mean when you look at other photos from the past like Richard Avedon.

Does an image at all have to be sharp? Because it seems like everyone wants sharp this, sharp that, and there is like no more story telling in the image. No real depth, or anything of that nature.

Do we also need a fast body and fast lens. I mean it is great to have. But it seems like you if you have a rebel XT and someone has like a Canon 40 or 5D then they seem more better than you? I remember one time I didn't have a back drop and a professor of mine said use what you have. So I had a reg. kit lens at the time and I had to use trash bags.

Well long story short the images turned out exceptionally well. And then when I showed the professor well the professor laughed at the fact I used a white trash bag as a back drop. I think in a way photographers say one thing to sound good, but when someone does go out and have to use other means to get an image, its like oh your not a professional if you don't have the high end equipment.

[JeffreyG]

Does a photo really need to be sharp? I mean when you look at other photos from the past like Richard Avedon.

Does an image at all have to be sharp? Because it seems like everyone wants sharp this, sharp that, and there is like no more story telling in the image. No real depth, or anything of that nature.

Do we also need a fast body and fast lens. I mean it is great to have. But it seems like you if you have a rebel XT and someone has like a Canon 40 or 5D then they seem more better than you? I remember one time I didn't have a back drop and a professor of mine said use what you have. So I had a reg. kit lens at the time and I had to use trash bags.

Well long story short the images turned out exceptionally well. And then when I showed the professor well the professor laughed at the fact I used a white trash bag as a back drop. I think in a way photographers say one thing to sound good, but when someone does go out and have to use other means to get an image, its like oh your not a professional if you don't have the high end equipment.

I can take a shot from a 5D and make it look like it was taken by a Holga if I want. I can not take a shot from a Holga and fix it to look like it was taken by a 5D.

Not all shots require a sharp image, a fast lens or a quick response. But if the shot you want to take does require the above and all you have is a pinhole camera then you are SOL.

Are you suggesting that better gear is an impediment? Because I don't think it is.

[Deckham]

Does it need to be sharp?
No.
But define 'need'.

For me, photography is about telling a story, and delivering an emotion. So for me, sharpness, or any other technical quality - is secondary to the emotive quality of the photo.

However, photography is also about 'recording', and with things like sports/wildlife, the more faithfully recorded, often the better.

This is an age-old argument about the definition of photographic art - and it is rather meaningless without context.

[Tixeon]

Are you suggesting that better gear is an impediment? Because I don't think it is.

Better gear is never an impediment as well as it is not always a necessity either. If one uses what one has and adjusts to it's limitations then great images can be made - within those limitations.

I spent many years using Mamiya C330F cameras & was happy. I replaced them with Hasselblads & was even happier. Did I make better photos with the Hasselblads? Not necessarily - but they did make it easier to do what I needed.

I replaced a small format view camera with Mamiya RB67 ProS with the same results as above. :D

[PhotosGuy]

So I had a reg. kit lens at the time and I had to use trash bags I don't care what I use as long as I can get the results I want/need. If people who spent 40 times more to get the same thing laugh, why should we care? I try to suggest simple solutions to solve problems to people in the forum. Look in here:
FAQ - Studio Lighting (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66140)

I agree with Tixeon. If I needed something to make a recurring type of work easier like he did, then I'd get it, too. But as a PJ who covered 18 states+ & had to hump all my equipment myself, I made sure I really needed something before it went in my bag. Does a photo really need to be sharp? Generally, I want some part of it to be sharp. But I don't feel that it all needs to be.

Selection for sharpening illustration. (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6232485&postcount=57)

Honey bees in flight & yellow daisies (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=578150)

[DDCSD]

I like to have a sharp image, but I think sharpness is over-rated. Many people ignore a boring subject and poor composition and think the image is great as long as it is sharp. I think that is terrible.

Someone on here has a line in their sig that says something like "Whenever someone comments on how sharp my image is, I assume it must be a boring photo".

I think that speaks volumes.

I'd rather have a somewhat soft image that is well composed than a super sharp mess of an image.

I also think that the focus on sharpness really hurts a lot of new photogs. They concentrate on getting L glass to get the sharpest image they can, but don't bother with learning to compose better.

[rral22]

I think there are some images that absolutely need to be sharp, and some that don't need absolute sharpness to work well. I want equipment that can do sharp when it is appropriate. Blurry is easy any time.

[Tixeon]

I like to have a sharp image, but I think sharpness is over-rated. Many people ignore a boring subject and poor composition and think the image is great as long as it is sharp. I think that is terrible.

Someone on here has a line in their sig that says something like "Whenever someone comments on how sharp my image is, I assume it must be a boring photo".

I think that speaks volumes.

I'd rather have a somewhat soft image that is well composed than a super sharp mess of an image.

I also think that the focus on sharpness really hurts a lot of new photogs. They concentrate on getting L glass to get the sharpest image they can, but don't bother with learning to compose better.

I couldn't have said it better myself... tw

[timbop]

sharpness - or at least resolution in lw/ph or whatever is easy to measure, so that's the typical benchmark. As mentioned composition and "interesting" are hard to quantify. It's kind of like "lines of code" being the metric by which programmers used to be judged. It's easy to write bad compact code just as it is easy to write bad verbose code, but since it was easy to measure that's what was used.