Sharpness is Overrated!

[2WheelPhoto]

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

No, that could never happen on here, never!

Nor anywhere on the internetz

 

[belial]

Technical value has never been important in artwork. Either the artwork says something or it doesn't.

 

[Starskream666]

I've said this from the beginning, and got loads of **** for it.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Technical value has never been important in artwork. Either the artwork says something or it doesn't.

Not true. It's actually a matter of whether the artist or his marketing director can convince people that if they don't understand it they aren't worthy.

Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.

 

[tirediron]

Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.

And you are qualified to make that blanket statement because....

 

[blackrose89]

Technical value has never been important in artwork. Either the artwork says something or it doesn't.

Not true. It's actually a matter of whether the artist or his marketing director can convince people that if they don't understand it they aren't worthy. Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.

Agreed. Also agrees professionals at times use iphones. Part of the new avengers movie was filmed using an iPhone and iPhone apps. Tells you something about the general quality.

 

[mishele]

Is sharpness overrated? I guess it depends on the type of photographer you are.......

The photographer that is an artist first is going to say "sharpness is overrated". Artists tend to try to push the limits of any medium they are using to create their art. They think outside the box and try to go against the grain. No true artist just wants to copy something they see. They want to create.


If you are a photographer first, you prolly will say that sharpness is the end goal. You are prolly striving for technical perfection. =)

Nothing wrong w/ either just a different mindset.

Great post, BJ!!

 

[tirediron]

No, sharpness is not overrated.

In your opinion.

Being able to achieve a sharp photo of a subject is an essential skill a photographer must have.

I'll buy that.

...doesn't mean newer photos can be 'iconic', 'great' and 'soft'.

Why not?

Those were the best possible of the day...it wasn't a matter of artistic interpretation. They just couldn't do any better.

BULL$***!!!! That is rubbish and you know it. Take two minutes and do a Google image search on "Civil War". The first two pages of results come up with dozens of images that are well more than "acceptably" sharp, especially when you allow for their age.

It's where your expression 'f/8 and be there' comes from.

I believe that "F8 and be there" referred to the fact that on the Speed and Crown Graphics, f8 gave you a DoF that generally sufficient for most images, ensuring that the photographer could focus his attention on the events.

If you take a photo of a great moment, you have suceeded...

Yep!

Something that I think has been overlooked here is the type of softness. Is it soft because the photographer failed to use the necessary DoF? Is it soft because his/her shutter-speed was too low and shake was apparent? Or, is it soft because that was the best the equipment could deliver? OR, was it deliberately softened because the artist wanted that effect. Softness due to error is not desirable under any circumstance IMO, softness due to equipment limitation is undesirable, but unavoidable, and softness due to photographer preference is purely subjective. The problem with looking at many older, soft images, is that it's often difficult to tell why they were soft. Was it because the exposure was so long that slight vibrations caused camera shake? Was it that the photographer was poor and the best lens he could afford was cheap, or that his camera didn't focus well? OR, was it because he truly desired that effect...

 

[blackrose89]

Something that I think has been overlooked here is the type of softness. Is it soft because the photographer failed to use the necessary DoF? Is it soft because his/her shutter-speed was too low and shake was apparent? Or, is it soft because that was the best the equipment could deliver? OR, was it deliberately softened because the artist wanted that effect. Softness due to error is not desirable under any circumstance IMO, softness due to equipment limitation is undesirable, but unavoidable, and softness due to photographer preference is purely subjective. The problem with looking at many older, soft images, is that it's often difficult to tell why they were soft. Was it because the exposure was so long that slight vibrations caused camera shake? Was it that the photographer was poor and the best lens he could afford was cheap, or that his camera didn't focus well? OR, was it because he truly desired that effect...

Agreed!

I think a bigger problem is a lot of people classify a "soft" focus for a "missed" focus. I posted up this photo of this bee not too long ago, and I asked if someone could help me make the "missed" focus look better. And people on HERE corrected me and pointed out to me that I nailed the focus, but since I am using an old compact, I am limited to how the camera focuses. It's not that I missed the focus, my camera focuses very softly. When I use other cameras, the focus is much stronger. But that all changes soon THANK GOD!

 

[mishele]

Why does it matter "why" they are soft? People analyze things too much, just look and enjoy.

 

[tirediron]

Why does it matter "why" they are soft? People analyze things too much, just look and enjoy.

I think it matters in the context of Bitter's original question. Can you really include user-error in a question like that? Granted, if it's a nice image, who cares, how or why, but purely based on the question he asked, I think it's relevant.

 

[Derrel]

Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.

And you are qualified to make that blanket statement because....

...because to him "art" is paint-by-number scenes, of cliched things like seascapes, New England fall color, and bowls of fruit; in other words, his narrow definition of "art" is easily-accessible material that conforms to his narrow definition and limited understanding of "art". I am basing this upon his adamant statements early on in the discussion that the MOST-important thing in good photography is technical perfection and "sharpness". Kerbouchard's insistence that only , "Very rarely is 'art' actually done well," is really in itself the kind of common-man, plebian understanding of the fine arts that exists in much of the USA. People like him hate opera, hate hip-hop music, hate rap music, dislike free-form poetry, absolutely loathe avante-garde "anything", and watch highbrow TV shows like Jersey Shore, Dancing With The Stars, and other dreck. Museums? Those are for squares! Art galleries? Only for Hipster democrats and liberals. BFA and MFA degrees in the fine arts? Only for commie pinko lib-tards. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in Texas. And truth be known, across much of the USA.

Yeah, we get it Kerby...in your world, and in Texas, "art" means easily-accessible, facile works. Stuff done from roughly 1700 to 1865. That to you is the "well-done art". If you do not have the education, or the artistic sensibility, or the critical thinking ability to step outside your narrow concept of what art "is", then you simply say it's all crap. You are one of a hundred million uneducated Amuuuuricans, all dissing "art" that they cannot understand. You mock what you do not understand. You mock that which you have not studied. You mock the cultures of countries you're not from. You mock the music of people who are different from you. "We get it, Kerby".

Buy some books about art. Then read them. And then after reading them, then STUDY them. Diligently. Go to some museums. And then, just maybe, and the maybe is strong, you'll have the beginning of an inkling of a clue about what "art" is, and what it does, and just maybe, you'll revise your blanket statement. (Oh, who the heck am I kidding...go back to eating Doritos while watching your Jersey Shore episodes on Hulu, while you pass your life waiting for the next Dallas Cowboy's loss this weekend.)

 

[Dao]

For some reasons, I thought Overread changed his handle to Sharpness. Oh well ...

 

[Kerbouchard]

Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.

And you are qualified to make that blanket statement because....

...because to him "art" is paint-by-number scenes, of cliched things like seascapes, New England fall color, and bowls of fruit; in other words, his narrow definition of "art" is easily-accessible material that conforms to his narrow definition and limited understanding of "art". I am basing this upon his adamant statements early on in the discussion that the MOST-important thing in good photography is technical perfection and "sharpness". Kerbouchard's insistence that only , "Very rarely is 'art' actually done well," is really in itself the kind of common-man, plebian understanding of the fine arts that exists in much of the USA. People like him hate opera, hate hip-hop music, hate rap music, dislike free-form poetry, absolutely loathe avante-garde "anything", and watch highbrow TV shows like Jersey Shore, Dancing With The Stars, and other dreck. Museums? Those are for squares! Art galleries? Only for Hipster democrats and liberals. BFA and MFA degrees in the fine arts? Only for commie pinko lib-tards. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in Texas. And truth be known, across much of the USA.

Yeah, we get it Kerby...in your world, and in Texas, "art" means easily-accessible, facile works. Stuff done from roughly 1700 to 1865. That to you is the "well-done art". If you do not have the education, or the artistic sensibility, or the critical thinking ability to step outside your narrow concept of what art "is", then you simply say it's all crap. You are one of a hundred million uneducated Amuuuuricans, all dissing "art" that they cannot understand. You mock what you do not understand. You mock that which you have not studied. You mock the cultures of countries you're not from. You mock the music of people who are different from you. "We get it, Kerby".

Buy some books about art. Then read them. And then after reading them, then STUDY them. Diligently. Go to some museums. And then, just maybe, and the maybe is strong, you'll have the beginning of an inkling of a clue about what "art" is, and what it does, and just maybe, you'll revise your blanket statement. (Oh, who the heck am I kidding...go back to eating Doritos while watching your Jersey Shore episodes on Hulu, while you pass your life waiting for the next Dallas Cowboy's loss this weekend.)

It would take years to appropriately respond to this post. It would take you several years to digest it, refute it, argue against it, and then understand it. I don't have that kind of time, so for your benefit, the end conclusion is you are full of it.

 

[tirediron]

Actually Derrel, that wasn't supposed to be an invitation to bash him, I just don't understand how ANY one person can make such a sweeping judgment about something so vast as "art" and why he feels he is qualified to make such a statement. Even if your last name is Angelo, I don't think you'd be qualified (but, I'll grant that you'd have a lot more credibility).