Sharpness is overrated

[chuasam]

Post a great unsharp image. That being said, the given image has to have artistic merit and is not merely unsharp for the sake of being unsharp.

Also, put a link to your favourite image (or two) that is unsharp (that is taken by someone else).

Lartigue

Ellen von Unwerth

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

Be careful! I went down this road once before.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/265881-sharpness-overrated.html

 

[DorkSterr]

No, it's not.

 

[Damndirtyape]

Unsharp images are scary!

 

[chuasam]

Be careful! I went down this road once before.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/265881-sharpness-overrated.html

Yeah but that Thread got closed down before I got here.
Sharpness is not the be all and end all of photography. It is just a trait...not a goal.

 

[slackercruster]

Talking about movement or diffusion?

I got some movement photos, but they are not handy. They are negs that need to be scanned.

So let me submit some 'cheezy' diffusion samples.

Taken with Pentax D2000 with REAL, not fake, single element 100mm f5.6 diffusion lens.

This one was with Pentax K1000 with Fujicolor and scanned the photo.

...personally, I like any type of photo that can speak to me - whether muted, grainiy, sharp, foggy, whatever.

 

[Josh220]

I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.

 

[bentcountershaft]

No, it's not.

Booooo!

 

[ADavis85]

Look Ma'! No hands! by ACDavis85, on Flickr

 

[bhop]

Prowlers by bhop, on Flickr

 

[slackercruster]

NICE!!bhop

 

[slackercruster]

I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.

I used to think so, but get some of the NG coffe table books. Loaded with fuzzy, grainy, blurred, muted images and they look great!

 

[bhop]

Forgot to add my link.. check out just about any of Daido Moriyama's stuff..

Daido Moriyama official web site|DaidoMoriyamaPhotoFoundation

 

[chuasam]

I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.

and there is a whole lot more to photography than landscape stuff and National Geographic stuff.

 

[The_Traveler]

IMO, there is no specific issue that is so overwhelmingly important that it must be included - unless it interferes with the enjoyment of the image.