Sharpness is Overrated!

[Robin Usagani]

My 2012 new year resolution, I will take more motion blurred photos of my subjects especially on my weddings.

 

[unpopular]

A side note: I do not think these images are about being soft, but about being "pictorial". Something pictorial now should perhaps take into account what happened in Painting in the last decades, which may drive towards other meanings of "pictorial". By the way, cross fertilization occurred also on the other side, with hyperrealism.

Hyper-realism is kind of a gimmick, imo - intended only so that we oogle an artists *mad skillz*. In a way, super sharp photography for the sake of super sharp photography is oogling the photographer's bank account. I can't help but wonder if these visceral arguments in favor of absolute sharpness has more to do with lost cost than aesthetics.

I think that if an image is about fine detail, sharpness is important. If it's about intimacy, sharpness is distracting.

 

[Kerbouchard]

It's a strawman argument. I don't know that anybody has said that a photo "must be sharp" or that a photo "must" be anything. The closest was one of my earlier posts where I said being able to achieve a sharp photo was an essential skill for a photographer.

Oh, to put some of your other assumptions about me aside, I'm not a Cowboy's fan(Go Texans!). I've traveled the world and have seen some of the greatest art mankind has produced. Some of it I appreciated and fell in love with. Some was underwhelming and I believe to be overrated. As far as 'art', see, I have this weird thing called a brain. It allows me to look at something and make judgements for myself. I don't need to read a book so that somebody else can tell me why I am supposed to like something. I am sorry that you feel that is necessary to 'appreciate' some types of art. As far as myself being an artist, I've never made that claim. I've said over and over that I see photography from an Engineer's standpoint. I can memorize the rules, memorize composition, memorize how to achieve certain effects, and produce 'artistic' images, but I am not an artist.

Oh, and sharpness is not overrated.

The people who "insist" that a photograph "must be sharp" are really little more than button-pushers who view photography as a purely mechanical activity, devoid of artistic expression.

THAT is the point of view that spawned pictorialism. Pictorialism was a response to the flood of amateur snap-shooters who worked with basically, no artistic interpretation, but instead just pointed their cameras and used them as mechanical recording devices. People who wanted nothing more than sharp, clear photos depicting EXACTLY WHAT they had seen, in real-life.

The idea that successful photographs must be super-sharp, and clear in order to be good photos is a point of view still alive today in the minds of many people, almost all who have never studied what photography truly can be, when it is practiced for the sake of art, self-expression, or exploration of ideas. Of course, if one's idea of photographic greatness is shooting the same basic pictures of men and women dressed up in almost identical costumes, week after week, in the 15 or 20 same locations and rooms, for years on end, then sharpness of the results is probably going to be considered the critical determining factor in evaluation one's success as a photographer. Well, that,and whether the client's check clears.

Those who argue that photography "must be this" or "must be that" in order to be successful have a very narrow-minded, simple concept of photography. The idea that "sharpness" is an absolute necessity for successful photographs is a joke. It's an incredibly lame, simpleton's argument. People who advocate that images must be sharp, and must be representational or accurate images of what existed in reality are not artists. Just button-pushers, who view photography as purely a mechanical recording process, devoid of any artistic potential, but really good at direct and pure recording of scenes and people.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I can memorize the rules, memorize composition, memorize how to achieve certain effects, and produce 'artistic' images, but I am not an artist.

And you shoot weddings??

 

[Kerbouchard]

I can memorize the rules, memorize composition, memorize how to achieve certain effects, and produce 'artistic' images, but I am not an artist.

And you shoot weddings??

I'm really good at memorizing stuff.

 

[jake337]

I would think, the need for sharpness and image quality, would be directly related to your clientele needs. If someone is not paying you to take photos for them, then those needs are dependant on your personal opinion on the subject.

If someone pays for soft focus, give them soft focus.

If someone wants shallow DOF, give them shallow DOF.

If someone wants tack sharp throughtout, hyperfocal focus.


Or you can do whatever floats your boat and let those who enjoy it, enjoy it.

 

[unpopular]

If I may be so bold, I think I have cracked the art problem. Well. Maybe not. But i like my definition.

Art is any process by which the artist synthesizes a complex idea into a more simple form. The more complex the idea and the more simplified the synthesis the more merited the artwork.You could almost view art's success as a ratio between complexity and simplification; mathematicians call it "elegance" - which is funny, of the most hard and objective sciences - mathematics - they often use such loose and subjective quantification.

This definition does away with the old art/science dichotomy. It transcends the imprecise philosophies of aesthetics and excludes no genere or medium. Snapshots are art, landscapes are art, abstracts are art, portraits are art - they serve to synthesize a memory, a place, an idea or a person.

Yet unlike previous definitions, it clearly determines functional differences in various objects, yet still permits degrees of craft (that which serves only function) and art (that which is a synthesis of concepts) to simultaneously exist within any given object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_gas

It's shape and construction is craft based on objective requirements determined by our knowledge of compressed gas, it's color is art - the synthesis of danger, awareness and caution; flammability and fire.

What purpose does sharpness or lack of sharpness serve in any given image - what element of the experience does it synthesize? If sharpness is required for the sole purpose of seeing the objective subject (the "specimen" in my made up nomenclature), it is craft. If sharpness is there simply because it must be, then it serves no purpose.

 

[blackrose89]

I think certain people need to get off their high horse. Just because you excel at a hooby/profession doesn't give you the right to talk to/about people any way you want. I understand it's art, I understand its an image making form, I understand it takes years to get decent, I understand that a lot blood, sweat, tears and knowledge goes into it. But at the end of the day, you're taking photos, not ending world hunger. Chill.

 

[bazooka]

I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!

Is special training required to talk about and appreciate art?

 

[Derrel]

I think certain people need to get off their high horse. Just because you excel at a hooby/profession doesn't give you the right to talk to/about people any way you want. I understand it's art, I understand its an image making form, I understand it takes years to get decent, I understand that a lot blood, sweat, tears and knowledge goes into it. But at the end of the day, you're taking photos, not ending world hunger. Chill.

Aren't you supposed to be in your high school classes right now??? Are you texting this in from your phone?

 

[unpopular]

I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!

I sure as hell hope that wasn't directed towered me!

No matter, i agree. This is super elitist.

 

[blackrose89]

I'm a grown married women.

 

[unpopular]

I'm a grown married women.

pay no attention to him. he gets flustered and turns to insulting people for no other reason than they aren't old.

---

Derrel. Go drink some hydroquinone solution to calm down or something.

 

[Derrel]

I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!

Is special training required to talk about and appreciate art?

Yes. Can you speak Latin? Can you speak Russian? Are you well-versed in Renaissance painting? Can you talk about organic chemistry with any degree of certainty? Can you perform dental operations? Can you design a 12-story building? Do you know the difference between kitsch and art? YES, education is required to be able to truly appreciate ANYTHING.

Most Amuuricans have ZERO art training, and do not understand the difference between kitsch and true fine art...Would you ask if special training were required to talk about heart surgery, or aerospace engineering principles? The fact that you are asking such a question shows that you have a low appreciation of art, and probably, no education or training in art. Unless of course, you're just being a smart-ass. If a person has NO IDEA of the history of art, over time, then he is an uninformed speaker on that topic. He's the kind of guy that one overhears at museums making ignorant, Billy-Bob type statements such as, "Well, my DOG coulda' made that painting!"

Anti-intellectualism is alive and well. Art is a subject that most Americans are entirely,totally,totally unfamiliar with, except at the crayon and paste level...and yet, we hear boatloads of opinions about what art is, and how worthless it is, and many people make a lot of proclamations about art, as IF they KNOW something about it....and yet, we seldom hear those same loudmouths talking about organic chemistry, architecture, or internal medicine "as if they know a lot about those subjects".

Wonder why that is? People with ZERO training in "art" think they know all about it...and yet they do not pretend to be experts in other fields....

 

[Kerbouchard]

I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!

Head on over to Burger King tomorrow for the supreme culinary experience of your life...FREE French fries tomorrow, December 16, 2011.

On the way there, be sure to buy some pink flamingos for the front yard. And get a new copy of Dogs Playing Poker to hang in the living room.

Derrel, the thing about you is you are intellectually bankrupt. You assume too much. I have an extensive education in art, but I didn't get it in a classroom or sitting at home reading a book. Although I have done both, I much prefer taking a stroll down the streets of Dubai or Singapore or popping into a museum.

Learning to appreciate art by reading what other people think about it is like learning to love music by looking at sheet music.