Sharper the better? What is wrong with softening?

[Mindy]

I think this is a question you will have to answer for yourself.

Well I was fine with what the folks here have said that it's all about what I like. And it really is. But after being here for a few days, then yes I want feedback on my work because I am just a beginner. I think once I've mastered the skills being learned, I will like my work better. I am just questioning why, in this thread, it was said that it's about what I like.

I want to thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it!

 

[rufus5150]

At some level, artistic endeavors are quite internal, even if you're audience is people other than you. It's your expression. I'd question the artistic integrity of anyone who showed me a piece and said 'I don't like this piece'. I'd be 'why did you do it?' (but even the artist is sometimes forced into doing something artistically dubious to pay the bills... but that's another point entirely.)

I'm a firm believer in that you should like what you produce, when you produce it. There are images I loved a week ago that I don't like any more, but when you present it, you should like it.

The obvious exception is of course posting a really crappy image with an glaring flaw asking for technical details about how to avoid/fix/etc. Those situations the image is less art and simply more illustrative.

Being new, you've a chance to learn about composition and the ilk through other people's feedback. Maybe a completely centered image you have you think is great. People might suggest moving it off center or to try a version based on the ROT. Maybe you try it and decide it's better, maybe you try it and you don't like it. You're then given an opportunity to discover for yourself what appeals to you about the image vs what appealed to someone else about an alternate version of the image. Then the next time you go to take a similar picture, perhaps you try the new compositional tool in your toolbox and it works better for that image. Or maybe you figure out a way to get it the way you like but a way you anticipate would be pleasant to a 3rd party viewer as well.

And you'll be given the exposure (no pun intended) to situations where you may not have known for yourself how appealing something is to you. I bet if you looked around on these forums or even on google for high-key images you'll realize that in many cases softer is completely acceptable and sometimes very desirable in those images. Or if you look at high-contrast images, you'll see that's when softer images often make the image less appealing, and extremely sharp renditions make the image striking.

That's a lot of words to say: it is about what you like, but perhaps even you don't know all of what you like and all of what you don't like, yet.

 

[Peano]

But I don't know how to make the photo soft and leave out the eyes. I guess I still need to experiment with my software.

In Photoshop, you can do this with layers and masks. Duplicate the image, blur it, then paint with black on the layer mask where you want to reveal the underlying sharp image. I don't offer this as great editing; just an illustration of how you keep part of the image sharp while blurring other parts.

 

[2ART]

Hello, I am trying to understand a few things I was recommended which brings me here. I was told that lighting and contrast
is most important. I also was told that the sharper the better. Well what about softening? And what about depth of field?

Thank you.

The things you were told are not 'wrong' I'd say, but like anything,
they're generalisations/deletions of much longer explanations.

Good light is useful, most of the time - to get a decent (conventional)
exposure of the subject when you take a photo. Contrast which is
'assertive' 'strong' clear/defined is regarded by many, as desirable.
It makes the picture look 'intentionally' produced - decisive.

But high contrast lacking 'shadow detail' and dynamic range' will
also disappoint just as many other photographers.

Depth of Field is one thing. Depth of Focus is technically another.
DOF/Depth of Field has become the de facto term nowadays used
for both - which is not so very helpful. The depth of focus is often
the thing I feel many people are preo-ocupied by when they desire
that wide-aperture look.

Sharpness is often overdone IMO. Again it is perceived maybe as a
hallmark of competence in the digital/ auto focus era. It can be superb.
It can also be tiresome. I'm getting into switching off my in-camera
sharpening and using manual focus wherever practical. I find it very refreshing!

If you're seeking recognition from your friends, your family, your peers,
internet forum networks..you'll maybe feel peer-pressure to align yourself
stylistically with their tastes and their benchmarks for what is 'good'
photography and what isn't. But I believe that photography can be
done however you find it satisfying, across a spectrum that stretches
from an absolute objective approach, to an absolute subjective approach.

Within that, what you do, what equipment you use, what you photograph
and who you show the results to (if anyone) or who you get inspired
by or praised by.. is all completely your choices.

Unless your job or enterprise dictates otherwise, I'd say make
pictures that you want to make and make them how you want to make
them - following dogmas to impress narrow cliques of others may
lead you into a creative dead-end...or lose the vibe of what interests
you..and satisfies your needs for self discovery/meditation/expression
etc with a camera.

Hope that's too much info for a hello ! lol.