Sharpness is overrated

[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.

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

I could have just as easily created a comparison regarding any other field of photography, but I assumed our esteemed forum members were competent enough to do that for themselves. I obviously was not limiting it to a mere two categories. But alas, I forget this is the internet, where people want their hands held.

 

[Kbarredo]

Why dont you just instagram it. That will get take the focus off the blurriness of your pics.

 

[ericz83]

Prowlers by bhop, on Flickr

This is awesome. The 'unsharpness' totally works in this scene - my drunk walk home.

 

[Stradawhovious]

Why dont you just instagram it. That will get take the focus off the blurriness of your pics.

Angsty Much? :lmao:

 

[imagemaker46]

There are lots of situations when movement works with images, it doesn't necessarly mean they are unsharp. There are times when an image is just a little bit out of focus and it's useless, all depends on the image and the style.

 

[imagemaker46]

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

Can't compare these three images, the last two are shot during a different era of photography, there are elements in both these images that are sharp. The first image doesn't work, it simply looks like an out of focus photo.