Sharpness is a bourgeois concept

http://wallacebillingh​am.com …s-is-a-bourgeois-concept/

Good article. I had to click on it just because the title

My favorite paragraph, even if he did seem to leave out a couple words on the end:

"I think that this unhealty obsession with sharpness and bokeh is actually more of a symptom than the actual disease. The problem is that as artists we lack the confidence to really create our vision so in the end we rely on parlor tricks to make them work. This sends us down the road of buying gear, then buying more gear. We think that the answer to all our photography issues lies in buying gear, and that the only thing keeping us away from that National Geographic cover shot is that we don’t have an $8,000 DSLR"

Good read, I quite agree! (though I am also sometimes obsessed with sharpness ). Thanks for posting this,
Rafa.

I always find it interesting that people who go out of their way to decry sharpness-seeking make a point of their shooting with something far away from technical perfection (like a Holga). They're as much caught up in being anti-sharpness as the people who're caught up in sharpness.

People seek out technical perfection because it's easy - you just buy the right kit and follow the rules. Keeping well away from that is easy too.
It's the people just getting on with taking photos who've got it right.

Though "right" is relative to a certain context of course.

i believe a photo is good or not based on: subject material/lighting/comp​osition & post processing

but I still do like me some max sharpness and max bokeh

i'm vain

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote in post #11868386
I don't have a particular interest in sharpness but I assume a lot of it arises quite naturally because it's one of the few clearly quantifiable things in an otherwise artistic field.

I also think criticising those who have an obsession with sharpness pales in comparison to being a reverse snob with a holier-than-thou attitude.

Wow. Took the words right out of my mouth.

I started rolling my eyes as soon as I read the "this is why I like to use a Holga" stuff. Not only is he reverse-snobbing, he's about 8 years late to the look-at-me-I-use-120/Holga's party.

'Parlor trick', eh... Kind of like using a toy camera to give your images a certain look..


Anyway.. at least we get a wonderful definition of 'hipster photographer' out of that article.

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote in post #11868386
I don't have a particular interest in sharpness but I assume a lot of it arises quite naturally because it's one of the few clearly quantifiable things in an otherwise artistic field.

I also think criticising those who have an obsession with sharpness pales in comparison to being a reverse snob with a holier-than-thou attitude.

+100000

I think we all can relate...
But, I think that when you first start shooting it's easy to get wrapped up in gear mode...and...after some time it wears off and you find that for the most part you can create what you wanted to create with the simplest of tools.
But, in the end, to each their own, some folks find that buying and selling gear is as much of a hobby as photography.......And when you're selling gear...SHARP, is a must...

I did think it was ammusing talking about the same folks obsessed with sharpness are the same way with bokeh...

Quizzical_Squirrel wrote in post #11868386
I also think criticising those who have an obsession with sharpness pales in comparison to being a reverse snob with a holier-than-thou attitude.

I have to agree

I think intent is huge when discussing these. I do think some images just need to be sharp on the other hand I have a good friend that shot an amazing body of work with a Holga because it fit what she was trying to say and do perfectly. In the old film days those shooting with some of Hasselblads sharper glass like the 150 or 180 CF would use softar 1 filters on some of our lady sitters to cut the edge a bit. I couldn't see Adams image "The Tetons and Snake River" being as powerful if it were soft. Intent and if soft or sharp work with the visual statement are key to a successful photograph.

Firstly, let's get this out of the way. Dude sounds like an A-hole.

While I am not disagreeing that some people obsess too much with sharpness, when you pay top dollar for top notch gear, for instance $4000-$5000 for a 200L or 300L...actually any lens for that matter, I think it's prudent to make sure it's operating up to specs.

If you are shooting for money, you have an obligation to make sure your gear is operating up to specs.

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

This guy and his Holga B.S. sounds like a total snob.

He's also generalizing that a whole forum holds a certain opinion, clearly that isn't the case and gets all snotty when people take a person to task for the topic creator placing so much importance in a lenses "sharpness". There's nothing more worthless than an articles main focus is about the opinions of other people, especially the denizens of a message board.

And I love when a photographer finds self worth in using bad gear its like the exact opposite someone wanting expensive equipment. This should all be irrelevant. But here's a pat on the back for shooting a waterfall with a lens that has an assload of spherical aberration.

I have mixed feelings about this article. While I generally agree with it and think that a lot of people over analyze their gear way too much, I also think that amount of detail or "sharpness" in a picture sometimes makes a big difference. I know I'm not the only one that's stopped and thought " Wow, there's just so much detail in this image, how did the photographer achieve that?" and I know it isn't all post processing skills. You can enhance sharpness but not put it into a photo if it wasn't there originally so ...