Blasphemy - I could care less how sharp your photo is!

gjl711 wrote in post #19201456
That goes back to the point I was trying to make way back in post #14. It is impossible for a photographer to create an image that will convey a message unless the photographer first tells you what the message they want to convey is. Without context, an image is just an image and will be interpreted based on the perceptions of the viewer and may or may not be in line with the artists intentions.

In college critiques one of the very first things discussed is intent. But having said that I think that with some images it is also OK for the viewer to come up with their own interpretation which may or may not be anything close to what the actual intent of the creator was/is. Some create images that encourage the viewer to participate. Invite them in. Sometimes the creator has put real staying power in their images. So that the viewer gets more each time they view the work. It is not working on a simple immediate gratification but on a longer, deeper type experience. The more the image is viewed the more it reveals. And then there is how far along the viewer is on their own journey. Maybe the viewer doesn't see or understand what is in the image but later views the image and it suddenly makes perfect sense.

.
I was just watching a Ray Hennessy video, and the conversation turned to this very issue of sharpness, and how important it is ... or isn't.

The part of the conversation about sharpness is about 3 minutes long, and starts at the 1:20:17 mark:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=YjC9fhLvjBY


.
.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19203390
.
I was just watching a Ray Hennessy video, and the conversation turned to this very issue of sharpness, and how important it is ... or isn't.

The part of the conversation about sharpness is about 3 minutes long, and starts at the 1:20:17 mark:

https://www.youtube.co​m/watch?v=YjC9fhLvjBY


.
.

Geez, I probably shouldn't say anything without reading this entire thread but I looked at the thread title and watched a couple of minutes of the video above.
In so many respects, the world has gone mad. Photography has fallen to pieces over the last couple of decades as well.
I know I'm going to likely offend, not sure who as I haven't read the opinions here.
However, a photo has to be sharp 99.9% of the time. Incredibly few exceptions. Not sharp, it's a delete/bin job.
What is the world coming too that today people sit there and say it's ok for a photo to not be sharp???

I better go read the entire thread now so I better understand who might attack me and why...

Fleury29 wrote in post #19203465
Geez, I probably shouldn't say anything without reading this entire thread but I looked at the thread title and watched a couple of minutes of the video above.
In so many respects, the world has gone mad. Photography has fallen to pieces over the last couple of decades as well.
I know I'm going to likely offend, not sure who as I haven't read the opinions here.
However, a photo has to be sharp 99.9% of the time. Incredibly few exceptions. Not sharp, it's a delete/bin job.
What is the world coming too that today people sit there and say it's ok for a photo to not be sharp???

I better go read the entire thread now so I better understand who might attack me and why...

Have a look at Pomo's photos on this forum to see some really great photos that are not sharp.

Also, there are many examples around of very not sharp photos that effectively convey the sense of movement of moving things.

Just look at the work of some of the greats like Bresson, Paul Capanigro, Robert Frank, Ralph Gibson, Roy DeCarava and sharpenss is not the end all. Content is.

Pippan wrote in post #19203472
Have a look at Pomo's photos on this forum to see some really great photos that are not sharp.

Also, there are many examples around of very not sharp photos that effectively convey the sense of movement of moving things.

Ok. Remember I'm new, haven't seen much of anyone's work here.
I quickly searched Pomo and looked at some random pics. Found sharp and not sharp pics but nothing that changes my mind from what I saw. I can see possibly art/abstract may come into the sharpness equation. That type of photography is an entirely different topic and anything goes. For what I deem "pure" photography, I couldn't see anything to alter my opinion from the few images I looked at.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #19203479
Just look at the work of some of the greats like Bresson, Paul Capanigro, Robert Frank, Ralph Gibson, Roy DeCarava and sharpenss is not the end all. Content is.

I have always tried to limit looking at any professional photographers work. I will search the mentioned photographers images.

I have such little time atm. I will read this entire thread and look up many images mentioned from the photographers above over the weekend. I'm slowly getting back into photography and discussions like this are fun but I can't really go any further in the discussion without reading all the opinions expressed in the thread. I also certainly need to look at the images mentioned. Then I will be happy to come back and hopefully add to this discussion.

I am familiar with some famous works like Bressen and even with a quick google on his images to refresh my memory, I can't recall any images that really aren't sharp?

Fleury29 wrote in post #19203487
Ok. Remember I'm new, haven't seen much of anyone's work here.
I quickly searched Pomo and looked at some random pics. Found sharp and not sharp pics but nothing that changes my mind from what I saw. I can see possibly art/abstract may come into the sharpness equation. That type of photography is an entirely different topic and anything goes. For what I deem "pure" photography, I couldn't see anything to alter my opinion from the few images I looked at.

I have always tried to limit looking at any professional photographers work. I will search the mentioned photographers images.

I have such little time atm. I will read this entire thread and look up many images mentioned from the photographers above over the weekend. I'm slowly getting back into photography and discussions like this are fun but I can't really go any further in the discussion without reading all the opinions expressed in the thread. I also certainly need to look at the images mentioned. Then I will be happy to come back and hopefully add to this discussion.

I am familiar with some famous works like Bressen and even with a quick google on his images to refresh my memory, I can't recall any images that really aren't sharp?

The Henri Cartier Bresson photograph of the man jumping the photo is a touch soft.

A piece Leica did on my work a few years back. The large first image is not tack sharp
https://www.leica-camera.blog …pontaneous-relationships/

This image is not tack sharp. Neither would be better if they were.

Is the image sharp?
Is the image free of noise?
Is the image composed properly?
Does the image tell a story?
Is the image colorful, or contrasty if b&w,
Is the image exposed well?
Can the image be printed in a number of aspect ratios?

Etc

How many or few of these can be answered yes before an image file is tossed? Sharpness is just one of many factors that can add to an image's greatness.

I've read the thread and it discusses more than one subject. I initially looked at the title, then the linked video before I made my previous posts. I have now read the thread and see it refers to 2 different things, sharpness and focus. It goes into more actually but let's just worry about these two.

Is it ok for an image to not be sharp? Yes
Is it ok for an image to not be correctly focused? No

I'll give examples:

Page one of the thread Dorothea Lange’s famous “Migrant Mother” photograph is mentioned.
Is it good photography? No, it's rubbish. This is a bin/trash/delete job.

Why is Migrant Mother deemed acceptable by the world? Why are the other images presented throughout this thread deemed acceptable? In most cases, it's their content.
There are many well known images that are famous for their content and/or newsworthiness. This does not make them good photographs or suggest the elements within the photograph have been correctly achieved. All technical requirements and rules can be thrown out for this type of image and it will still be successful.

If Dorothea Lange had shot her image on a modern camera, quickly looked at her LCD and found she missed focusing on the face what would she have done? She would almost certainly have taken a second image and thrown the first, now famous one, out.

Photographically, the image is weakened by the woman's face being soft. The image could be improved with more facial detail and sharpness. This isn't an image we are trying to glamorize the model, we are trying to depict the conditions/stress this woman is under and it should be shown on her face as much as is possible. Heck, maybe Dorothy should've applied a little make-up to the model as well???

As an image for photographers to learn from, it demonstrates what not to do and demonstrates what to delete. The image is only strong because of it's content.

In this situation:

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19176502
If I take 20 shots of a deer, and 4 of them have the deer in a favorable pose, and one of those 4 is a bit more dynamic of a pose than the others, and if 5 of the 20 photos are tack sharp and the other 15 are soft ...... then the odds of the frame with the best pose also being tack sharp are rather slim.

In this case, all the photographs may be keepers for Tom. For Tom, the content may have greater meaning than the technical merits of the photograph. Which ones should Tom display on this forum? Likely not one of the 15 soft images. Some of his forum viewers will be looking at the images for their content but almost certainly every viewer will be looking at his images for their technical strengths.

If I take a pic of my daughter and miss focus, yes, for myself it might still be a keeper but that does not make it a good photograph. I'm keeping it for it's content and not because I feel I created a good image.

In the video they are suggesting missed focus is fine in a general context, it's totally wrong and ridiculous to suggest this.

Sharpness is a really open discussion. Focus is not. A great photographic image which other photographers should aspire too will have strength in all elements. The really and truly great images should contain great content and have great technical attributes.

Let's not lose sight of what a great photograph truly is.

Fleury29 wrote in post #19203650
In this case, all the photographs may be keepers for Tom. For Tom, the content may have greater meaning than the technical merits of the photograph. Which ones should Tom display on this forum? Likely not one of the 15 soft images. Some of his forum viewers will be looking at the images for their content but almost certainly every viewer will be looking at his images for their technical strengths.

I have to disagree. (I silently disagree with some other points you made, but this is the one that I can refute without wasting much time on it.) You reached this forum too recently to get acquainted with enough members to justify confidence in their reasons for valuing one photo or another. Perhaps technical strengths are your number one criterion. That doesn't mean they "almost certainly" hold the same rank for "every viewer."

There's technical merit and there's content–but that's not a complete list. How about esthetic appeal? That's uppermost for me. Good composition will draw me to an image initially. If it isn't there, I may be impressed by other qualities, but they don't immediately announce themselves. For Tom–I'm guessing here–the first consideration might be salability, and its details depend on what his clients value.

Overestimating the resemblance of other people to oneself is a common mistake. Don't fall into that trap.

Fleury29 wrote in post #19203650
.
Is it ok for an image to not be sharp? Yes
Is it ok for an image to not be correctly focused? No

Sharpness is a really open discussion. Focus is not.
.

.
But .....

The classic photo of the white deer running that Allen - a.k.a. airfrogusmc - linked to is out of focus. . That's right - the reason those deer are not sharp is not just because of the slower shutter speed, it is also because the photographer did not focus on them. . How do we know this? Because the trees in the distance behind them are much sharper than the deer themselves. . And yet the photo is one that some people consider to be a classic that has "stood the test of time".

So this shows that there are some people to whom focus itself isn't very important, or at the least, to whom precise focus is not essential for a quality image.

This is why photography isn't a science, there is no right answer. The only science to photos would be exposure (physics are the same today as they were decades ago) and focus accuracy.

However final desirability of a photo varies by individual, much like abstract art, or art really in any form.

Each person has a different like/interest for image content.
Each person sees colors and contrast differently (and that changes with age even).
Each person has a different visual acuity (and that changes with age).
Each gear and manufacturer brings different hardware to bear.
Each person captures different scenes, subject material and even will have different composition.
Each result will likely have been processed after the shot differently or not at all.
Every person has a different motivation for the images they capture.
and the list goes on...

So when we have these discussions about one factor of many that go into an image, there is never going to be a single consensus on a subject such as this. There are simply too many moving "parts" per person.

Fleury29 wrote in post #19203650
.
In this case, all the photographs may be keepers for Tom. For Tom, the content may have greater meaning than the technical merits of the photograph.
.

.
That is not the case at all. . For me, if a photo does not have technical soundness, then all of the other meaning it may have had is for naught. It is like technical problems with an image just completely ruin it for me, and I cannot enjoy what it may have been because of those technical deficiencies.

An example would be that white deer running photo that Allen posted. . I can understand how others would like it, and how they could consider it to be a classic, time-tested wildlife photo. . But I, personally, cannot enjoy it, because the fact that the trees are so sharp, while the deer are out of focus, is such a distraction that it just ruins the image for me. . I see that image and think, "if only ......"

I still have no idea why that photographer focused on the trees instead of the deer.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19203806
...
I still have no idea why that photographer focused on the trees instead of the deer.

.

Maybe they forgot that the shutter speed was set slow but looking at the final result, figured they can get some coin from it by relabeling it a fine art photo.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19203806
.
That is not the case at all. . For me, if a photo does not have technical soundness, then all of the other meaning it may have had is for naught. It is like technical problems with an image just completely ruin it for me, and I cannot enjoy what it may have been because of those technical deficiencies.

An example would be that white deer running photo that Allen posted. . I can understand how others would like it, and how they could consider it to be a classic, time-tested wildlife photo. . But I, personally, cannot enjoy it, because the fact that the trees are so sharp, while the deer are out of focus, is such a distraction that it just ruins the image for me. . I see that image and think, "if only ......"

I still have no idea why that photographer focused on the trees instead of the deer.

.

Tom, it was taken with large format. I have seen a print of this when Andrew Smith had a gallery in Santa Fe some yeas back and the deer are soft due to the motion of the herd. The grass under them and even closer to the camera is sharp. But it is the act of the herd running and that energy that is important to this image. Not sharpness.

The reason this image has stood the test of time is it shows what that herd of deer meant to the creator. Capanigro decided the motion of the herd was what was important to him instead of the obvious. That is what separates this photograph from the billions of other deer photographs where the photographers went for the obvious. The obvious is easy. It is what most do. The question i how does one make a photograph that goes beyond the obvious? How does one make photographs that capture how they feel about what is being photographed.

Some of the other comments (not yours Tom or ohlook) are just so wrong I wont even comment.

Allen