Sharpness is Overrated!

DiskoJoe · Dec 14, 2011

Bitter Jeweler said:
Pictorial Photography in America 1920

Pictorial Photography in America 1921

Pictorial Photography in America 1922

Well, is it?

Have we become so technology crazed, and lust so much for perfection, that we forget the beauty that came before us, with much less? I do realize this was all cutting edge at the time. But I think when we talk about image quality, we are always going towards perfection, rather than discussing image qualities which could be quite soft but still be an exceptional image.

In these books, there are ads for lenses, most of which are selling their softness, or quality of diffusion. There are a few that advertise sharpness, though.

In these books, there're many, many, amazing, outstanding images. Look how soft they are. I am really intrigued by this history. Would any one, or all of these images be better if they were sharp as today's standards? There's only a few that in would say yes to.

Derrel, how would one go about duplicating this sort of softness using todays technology?
Could something be done to a screw on filter to mimic this style with current lens selection?
Could something be done to the lens element, creating dedicated soft lenses?
Is it more than just the lens, and includes paper choices, film choices, etc?

Just focus manually. I get this look all the time when i dont want it.

DiskoJoe · Dec 14, 2011

Schwettylens said:
Second shooter I hired Haley Poulos loves to shoot blurry photos on purpose.

http://cakesniffer.org/hpo/201105/29/20110529026b.jpg

And we have a winner!!!!

Destin · Dec 14, 2011

There is absolutely more to a photo than sharpness, or any technical matter for that fact. I'm not saying I would purposely try to create a soft photo, but go to your local Barnes and noble and pick up a copy of nat geos "best photos" book. I was looking through it last time I was there and the one thing that caught my eye was how ridiculously soft some of the candid shots of people were. To the point it would be a right click delete for me. However they were still insanely impacting images, that had more raw emotion, and character than my best ten shots combined.

My conclusion was: sharpness isn't everything. A photo is mean to cause a reaction in its viewer. The only people noticing that the images aren't totally sharp are other photographers. The general non photog public just wants to see the emotion, feel, and character of the scene. Hell it could be over or underexposed by a stop and theyre not gonna care. The impact of a good photo surpasses technical matters. Period.

ann · Dec 14, 2011

John Galt is sitting in my bookshelf.

Snakeguy101 · Dec 14, 2011

This is one of my favorite photographs. Nothing about it is sharp: Israel Picture
Also this little article is a good read about creatively using softness to get an image to work: Jim Richardson on Portrait Photography and Exposure Tips -- National Geographic

Robin Usagani · Dec 14, 2011

I sometimes get blurry photos on purpose

Proteus617 · Dec 14, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
Ellsworth Toohey is taking over our society.

No, sharpness is not overrated. Being able to achieve a sharp photo of a subject is an essential skill a photographer must have. Knowing when not to do that is a nuance very few will ever achieve, but that is not to say that skill is not worthwhile. But to chase after certain 'iconic' photos that are 'great' and 'soft' doesn't mean newer photos can be 'iconic', 'great' and 'soft'. Those were the best possible of the day...it wasn't a matter of artistic interpretation. They just couldn't do any better.

Interesting perspective! Please review Steichen's Moonrise or Flatiron Building. Better yet, see some of Steichen's work in person. Then come back here and elaborate on your thesis regarding Steichens lacking of an essential skill and his images being due to the limitations of technology.

Ysarex · Dec 14, 2011

BastiaanImages said:
I think there is just a gap between sharp and intentionally unsharp that should be avoided (although there are always exceptions to the rule). A picture that was meant to be sharp by the photographer but turns out with a bit of blur won't work. A picture that was set up to have some unsharpness can work out very well because the photographer took it into consideration before taking the picture.

Not sure I'm making any sense

Yep -- that's it. What I tell my students is this: There's plenty of room for both sharp and soft photos. The key is the photographer's intent. What we want to avoid are mistakes. And if you do have a happy accident, swear on your grandmother's grave you were going for that effect.

Joe

j-digg · Dec 14, 2011

Over rated or not, I sure am appreciative of the sharpness I can achieve with my better lenses

belial · Dec 14, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
You are using ridiculous cell phone apps that make tons of money from silly users as an example of why Sharpness is overrated? Honestly, I expected more from you, Derrel.

Pretty sad, indeed, Mr. Toohey.

After all, anybody can just take a photo with a cell phone. Who is to say yours are better than theirs. Certainly not you. You just don't understand it's artistic integrity, it's nuances, it's meaning.

You and your perfectly shot photos, who needs you?

I give up...Oh, well, Who is John Galt?

I know five pros that love to use that "ridiculous" cellphone app

o hey tyler · Dec 14, 2011

In this thread: Opinion being stated as facts... Again.

zcar21 · Dec 14, 2011

I agree with Kerbouchard. Sharpness is not overrated. The problem I see is that a soft picture come out unintentionally and the error goes unnoticed. Then, people want to go buy a "sharper" lens.