Sharpness is a distraction.

I thought this quote was interesting:

"Sharpness has little to no bearing on composition, and therefore has little to do with the value of an image. Sharpness is a distraction that diverts our attention away from the fundamental elements which are the foundation of a strong image."

Yep, it is from Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/composition.​htm). Truth is truth regardless of the source.

Yeah, tell that to the art/creative director...

That it! Ken said it! I believe it!

The same can be said of any single element in a vacuum.

Composition is as important as sharpness and vice versa.
It's ridiculous to say one attribute is less than the other when it's easier than ever to strive for both.

There's some truth there. Some use technical dazzle to mask what is really a weak image underneath. I guess that one must make a distinction between "sharpness" and "in focus," perhaps.

ramair455 wrote in post #15625620
Yeah, tell that to the art/creative director...

LOL WORD!!

Oh , Ken. Well. Must be true then. :/

I agree that "Sharpness has little to no bearing on composition" but I disagree with Ken's statement "Sharpness is a distraction that diverts our attention away from the fundamental elements which are the foundation of a strong image." Maybe it's just me but I find it very distracting if an image isn't sharp. This picture that I took was a once in a lifetime shot. I stopped at a house that was surrounded by woods to ask if I could photograph their amazing tobacco barn. As I pulled into the driveway, this is the scene that I stumbled upon. Every single time I tried to take this shot, someone would pull into the driveway and the dog would get up and the kittens would scatter so I would go back to photographing the barn and come back when the animals relaxed and laid back down. Finally, after the fourth attempt in an hour, I was able to capture this shot but it came with a price. My ISO was at 100 because I had been using my tripod so shutter speed wasn't an issue and when I saw the dog and kittens back in the bucket, I grabbed my camera off the tripod and rushed over to get the shot before someone blew it for me again. As I got within 75 ft of the dog and kittens, the kittens started to scatter (3 are off camera to the left) so I just quickly snapped off 2 pictures before they all climbed out of the bucket again. I LOVE this shot but it drives me nuts that it's not tack sharp by any stretch of the imagination.

n1as wrote in post #15625582
I thought this quote was interesting:

"Sharpness has little to no bearing on composition, and therefore has little to do with the value of an image. Sharpness is a distraction that diverts our attention away from the fundamental elements which are the foundation of a strong image."

Yep, it is from Ken Rockwell (http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/composition.​htm). Truth is truth regardless of the source.

Anything Ken Rockwell states as fact carries the same weight in an argument as Gary Fongs self described "Master of Wedding Photography" statement. Both are full of hot air.

n1as wrote in post #15625582
I thought this quote was interesting:

"Sharpness has little to no bearing on composition, and therefore has little to do with the value of an image. Sharpness is a distraction that diverts our attention away from the fundamental elements which are the foundation of a strong image."

I agree that sharpness has little to do with composition, but I disagree that it's a distraction (for him maybe). A true pro should be able to produce consistent results with great composition and sharpness. That's what it's all about.

Haha, he must not know macro photography then.

Sharpness is important in a lot of applications ... but it's also a given, in those applications. Not something that, in and of itself, makes an image more desirable. It just has to be.

Sharpness, as an end, is a distraction. And Kenny is really only paraphrasing Ansel Adams.

But you see it here all the time ... people praising photos for being "so sharp!!" Effectively praising a photo for being in focus. You might as well praise proper exposure or white balance, at that point.

Ansel was on to something, though ... I know personally, most of the time I'd rather see a soft-but-interesting subject going for it rather than simply a sharp-but-boring one.

rpaul wrote in post #15626000
I know personally, most of the time I'd rather see a soft-but-interesting subject going for it rather than simply a sharp-but-boring one.

I agree, but why can't it be both? Sharpness alone isn't a distraction to composition, that's just untrue.

kin2son wrote in post #15626019
I agree, but why can't it be both? Sharpness alone isn't a distraction to composition, that's just untrue.

Of course it can be both ... and it should be both ... but an otherwise good image that's a little soft, or has motion blur, or camera shake, or whatever isn't immediately a bad image, either.

Sharpness becomes a distraction when it becomes about "I'm not going to take this [potentially good] shot because it won't be sharp" or "I'm going to cull this [otherwise good] shot because it's not sharp" or "I like this [Undeniably boring] shot because it's sharp."

Or even, "This lens / camera is good because it's sharp."

Yeah, there are some instances where the shot has to be sharp to be usable.

But how many photos have their goodness -- their place in the pantheon of photography -- hinged on sharpness? How many would be good if they were only shot with that L lens instead of a the kit? Not too many.