Tyranny of Sharpness

[KC1]

So painful.

If you're not interested then why respond? I find the subject fascinating and can do without your put downs. Thanks.

I think he meant that looking at the dead horse picture was painful, that the only thing that makes sense, why would he keep reading a thread he found painful?

 

[chuasam]

So painful.

If you're not interested then why respond? I find the subject fascinating and can do without your put downs. Thanks.

I think he meant that looking at the dead horse picture was painful, that the only thing that makes sense, why would he keep reading a thread he found painful?

*LOL* my thread wasn't about the joy of blurriness.
It was really about how sharpness seems to become the be all and end all of their images.
And that an image that isn't sharp can't be any good.
I have no idea how out of focus and completely abstract blur came into the equation except in jest.

My posts are about pushing boundaries and not simply accepting so called conventional wisdom.
(refer to my signature)
It is about pushing the envelope and finding new things as a photographer.
There are many here who are happy in their complacency. They are unwilling to continue to grow and experiment with various ideas.
It is their loss.

 

[chuasam]

This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.

If you're fine with not pushing boundaries and working to improve - sure.

It's the same thing I said in the other thread by you. NICE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

I'm perfectly capable of growing my skills without necessarily acquiescing to your particular perspective on whether or not blurry photos are good.

Again... this thread... just like the other one... you're being edgy for the sake of being edgy and playing the cute game where anyone who disagrees with you is clearly an inferior photographer or somehow "stuck in their ways".

If you're for real... and I doubt you are... then you're an example of why we have art exhibits that consist of a white canvas on a white wall.

If you're not for real, then you're really just a variant of an internet troll.

Either way, and as I said on your other thread... there have been PLENTY here that have come before you playing this game, and there will be plenty to follow.

Interestingly, in your attempts to be unique and edgy, you've pretty much just established yourself as just like all the rest.

Congratulations.

I'm not talking about blurry mistakes, I'm talking about the tyranny of sharp images. I'm talking about not accepting so called conventional ideas and finding your own path. I'm talking about photographers who have incorporated motion blur and even sometimes unsharp images to convey an idea.
You seemed to be bored by the topic and yet you keep returning to add jabs that bring nothing to the topic at hand.
In that context, maybe the troll on this thread is you.
Think about that.

 

[manaheim]

You really are my hero.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread now so I can stop being reminded of it.
Later.

 

[limr]

Yeah, so, uh, how about another picture, eh? And hey, here's a crazy idea - maybe some other people can post some of theirs, too!

Intentional blur:

Day 213 - A brief flirtation by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[unpopular]

“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept.”- Ansel Adams

Except a soft image that lacks concept. Reason #324 to dislike Adams, his sweeping use of catchy superlatives.

Sharpness is a tool. It can convey intimacy, movement, and dream.

But using softness where sharpness should be (as in the OPs example) does nothing. And proclaiming it as intentional likewise means nothing - it's still a mistake, just one made consciously.

 

[Vtec44]

This photo is not even close to sharp, shot at f1.6 af-c, while they're walking. I have others that are sharper but this is a keeper because of the emotions That's just my personal preference.

 

[limr]

Except a soft image that lacks concept. Reason #324 to dislike Adams, his sweeping use of catchy superlatives.

Sharpness is a tool. It can convey intimacy, movement, and dream.

But using softness where sharpness should be (as in the OPs example) does nothing. And proclaiming it as intentional likewise means nothing - it's still a mistake, just one made consciously.

And who's to say where sharpness "should be"?

 

[unpopular]

You have to be conveying *something* with softness is my point. Nobody has specific "say", but if the softness is apparent and does not contribute, then its no better than an instagram filter thrown haphazradly onto everything in order to make it look "more better".

 

[unpopular]

I'm all for softness. Don't get me wrong.

But this sort of attitude that making everything soft has merit is just foolish - all because something Adams said.

 

[chuasam]

I would rather see a less sharp image capturing a moment and emotion rather than the photographer miss the image completely because HE (it's almost invariable a male) was too concerned about the image being sharp.
The tyranny of sharpness would drive a photography risk failing to capture a meaningful image rather than capture an image that's not sharp.
I would rather see people push themselves to their limits and fail rather than stay safe and boring.

shot wide open at f/1.4
and on hindsight I fixed the chromatic aberration.
one can of worms per thread

 

[JaneJohnson]

I would rather see a less sharp image capturing a moment and emotion rather than the photographer miss the image completely because HE (it's almost invariable a male) was too concerned about the image being sharp.
The tyranny of sharpness would drive a photography risk failing to capture a meaningful image rather than capture an image that's not sharp.
I would rather see people push themselves to their limits and fail rather than stay safe and boring.
View attachment 122042
shot wide open at f/1.4
and on hindsight I fixed the chromatic aberration.
one can of worms per thread

I had a really long discussion regarding "being safe" and I just wanted to give you a for this post and photo as an example, like you've read my mind!

 

[Tim Tucker]

The reason why it's painful is this...

This is a discussion about blurry photos, and presumably about how people shouldn't be turned off of a photo JUST because it is blurry.

Your whole argument here hinges on what is decided to be the "correct" label or the exact definition of the words that you attach to images. See:

The example you posted ... no. It's NOT blurry. The part of the image that you're calling blurry is outside the plane of focus for the camera. Yes that portion is out of focus, but no photographer with any competence is going to look at that image and call it blurry. They're going to call it a technically correct capture with focus on the subject.

So it's painful because you're arguing the point from a position of incorrect... or at the very least "outside of the common usage"... terminology.

Which is purely about the words you use to label. It is technically correct and labeled correctly. But not really understood why.

Follow me through on this and you may see where I'm coming from, (and it certainly is not about definitions of blur )

Your image is not blurry.

I look at the image and see that the vast majority of it actually is blurry. Before you blow a fuse, I also understand that you see the image as sharp, I see the image as sharp, in fact most of the population sees the image as sharp.

If I shifted the focal plane a little so the eyes were slightly out of the plane of focus you would see the image as soft, most of the population of the world will agree with you.

This is simply because that's the way the human eye sees and interprets the data in front of it.

Now the important point about this is that, (remembering the thread is about the Tyranny of Sharpness), I can change an image from looking tack sharp to horribly soft without altering the absolute levels of sharpness or changing the proportion of focus to out of focus. The impression of sharpness changes considerably simply by moving the focal plane.

Simply labelling one as sharp and the other as soft does nothing to help understand that the human eye naturally sees some combinations of sharp/soft as sharp while others as blurred.

Art is a funny thing because there is some room for interpretation, but people feel that means they can just say whatever they like and do whatever they think is cool. The kicker is that to some degree they are right, however, if the predominance of the population feels the person is off-base, then the person is off-base.

Absolutely, I am in 100% total agreement. But not because the way we label things is correct, but because we understand a certain correctness in the way we see things. Challenging conventions in art is not about rules but about challenging human perception. I can't challenge your observation that the image I posted appears sharp, because it does to the vast majority. In the same way if I shifted the focal plane so the eyes were out of focus then I would find it difficult to convince an audience that the image was not out of focus.
This is the point I'm trying to make: It's not that the eyes are soft that goes against convention, but that other parts of the face are sharper because that's just not how we see the human face. We always see the human face as having sharper eyes because they always have a higher acutance. It's the relationship of sharp to soft that's important. This is easily demonstrated by softening the posted image. It still looks correct because even though they are soft the eyes are relatively sharper than the face. If I shifted the focal plane then the cheeks would be sharper, the balance would be altered and the eye would see it as wrong even if the eyes kept the same absolute sharpness as the image below:

Sharpness is not an absolute property, sharp and soft/blurred is rather a relative concept. For an image to appear sharp it must also have parts that appear soft. In all images sharpness is defined more by how it relates to the softer areas (and vice versa) than by any absolute measurement. For blurred objects there also needs to be a relationship, (even if it is only a visual recognition and a comparison against your memory of a similar object), for the effect of blur to be recognised. With motion blur against a blurred background all the impression of motion is contained in the contrast between the blurs.
I find no meaning in 'this image is blurred', because you must be able to compare it to not blurred for it to work, you must always have both.

 

[Overread]

I've seen a lot of focus stacked photos where everything is sharp - I've seen landscapes where there is an even distribution of sharpness from near to far. Neither of those examples as soft areas in the image and, when correctly displayed and viewed at a proper distance, the images are sharp. We don't need relativity to soft areas to see sharp, we can see it without relativity.

I think there are some grains of truth in what you're writing with regard to convention as to how we dictate where in a photo we expect the sharp/infocus points to be. However I think you're muddling it up with your own interpretation which is not strictly true. The edited version you have posted looks soft - no ifs nor buts its soft. Yes relatively speaking it appears normal in that the eyes are more in focus than the surroundings; but its still soft - if indeed blurry.

There are vast reductions in the contrast differences; details lost and missing; I would say its soft at best and blurry at worst. Were someone to post that straight out of camera I'd tell them to go back and try again with a faster shutter speed to avoid the softness.

 

[Vtec44]

For an image to appear sharp it must also have parts that appear soft. In all images sharpness is defined more by how it relates to the softer areas (and vice versa) than by any absolute measurement

Most of my cell phone images are sharp without any softer areas. Most of my studio shots at f9 are all sharp without the need of any softer areas for the images to appear to be sharp. The relativity of sharp vs soft is more or less subject isolation/separation and a way to direct viewer's attention and focus IMHO.

The intent of this thread is for people not to let technical perfection stop them from being free and creative, and I agree. I joined this forum many years ago and experienced the same issue, where too much focus was put on the technical perfection and my images became bland and boring. Photography was no longer fun and I was more obsessed with gear rather than photos. You need to understand the technical aspect of photography but don't let it hinder you from being creative. Being creative is much harder to master in photography because everything has been done already, so people just cling on to the technical aspect of it.