Well, as Henri Cartier-Bresson said, “Sharpness is a bourgeois concept.”
Of course, you have to define what is meant by “sharpness”, which although objectively measurable, is not so delineable on a subjective level. Are we referring to the difference between an expensive lens and cheap lens, both properly focused and such? Or are we referring to out-of-focus or motion blur, intentional or not? Does sharpness in the corners really matter or not? What about wide open or stopped-down?
What’s interesting is that a post like this a decade back would probably have already generated 100 responses, give or take 50. The point being that the fixation on technical image quality, while still present with camera reviews and perhaps critique, has appeared to have subsided, though I admit this observation is largely anecdotal.
Still, I do think that the mid- to late-2000s surge of DSLRs and use of software, which gave everyone the gift of 100 percent crop view, fueled excessively fastidious expectations. Plus, this site was geared to Canon users back then, and “L lens” braggadocio was all the rage. So at that time, sharpness was one of the It Girls of photography (along with RAW and Full Frame). And let’s face it, as a measure of quality, sharpness is relatively easy to attain if you have the money. Whereas the compelling use of composition, lights, lines, geometry, movement, color, tension, contrast, and so on often prove a bit more elusive.
So to Croasdail’s point, which is largely to Cartier-Bresson’s point, sharpness plays a role, but it is not always a definitive one, and certainly other elements of a photograph can take aesthetic precedence. As Croasdail noted, certain subject matters may actually benefit from a lack of tack sharpness and all engrossing resolution, which is NOT to say out-of-focus. After all, I heard rumors of portrait photographers in the 1970s-80s buying deliberately soft lenses since the need to reveal every pore was not always desirable. Urban legend? Some veterans may confirm.
I’m not even go to delve into the use of blurry or soft images for artistic purposes, only to say that photography certainly allows for such methodology. Instead, the broader issue centers on sufficiency; what gets by (Credit photography blogger Mike Johnston for this point). And in certain genres, particularly street photography and photojournalism, sharpness is not a primary concern as long as the subject matter is still digestibly in focus. And what is digestible will depend on the viewer.
Look at Dorothea Lange’s famous “Migrant Mother” photograph. The camera is focused on the blouse, not the face. Would the photo have benefited from proper focus? No, not for me, and in terms of the photo’s universal distinction, it’s a moot question. And then there’s Robert Frank’s highly influential “The Americans”, which at the time of its release, drew considerable criticism for its assault against technical perfection. The book remains my favorite photographic collection/essay.
But even if perfection is your thing, over the past decade, technology in digital camera/software has narrowed the gap between entry level and high end. Smart phones take sharp photos, or at least, sufficiently sharp for the majority of humans. Step up to an entry level DSLR with a kit lens, and you’re still, in this day and age, getting a remarkably high-quality product in regards to technical image quality.
Again, much of this is subjective, and undoubtedly, intent will player a major role. If your photography uses detail, texture, and resolution as an aesthetic element or if you print large (for a demanding client with eagle eyes nevertheless), then the more expensive setup is likely obligatory. On the other hand, if you want to use a pinhole camera for the rest of your life, that’s certainly your prerogative as well. That is, technical image quality operates within a broad spectrum in relation to its actual visual significance.
My ‘newest’ lens that I’ve used for the past six years is from 1958, the oldest from 1934. The 1934 lens is a bit soft even for me when opened up to f/2 but is sufficiently sharp stopped down. And even at f/2, it is still useable. Back when I used a DSLR, I had a Canon “nifty-fifty”, and that was certainly sharp enough for me. Notice how I’m saying “for me”. Sufficiency; determine yours and possibly save money…or not. As I ultimately say, buy and use whatever you want or need. But buying up will not automatically buy talent.
I like to open picture 1:1 and see all of details.
