Tyranny of Sharpness

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I myself am trying to let go of the instinctive need to have sharp images and work towards embracing this wabi-sabi concept. The Wabi-Sabi ties in with my other thread about grain.

“To Taoism that which is absolutely still or absolutely perfect is absolutely dead, for without the possibility of growth and change there can be no Tao. In reality there is nothing in the universe which is completely perfect or completely still; it is only in the minds of men that such concepts exist.”
Alan W. Watts
 
I had a really long discussion regarding "being safe" and I just wanted to give you a :thumbyo: for this post and photo as an example, like you've read my mind!

Wabi sabi is an ancient aesthetic philosophy rooted in Zen Buddhism, particularly the tea ceremony, a ritual of purity and simplicity in which masters prized bowls that were handmade and irregularly shaped, with uneven glaze, cracks, and a perverse beauty in their deliberate imperfection.

"Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius, and it is better to absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring."
Marilyn Monroe

I am not trolling by extolling the virtues of unsharpness and grain. I am trying to embrace artistic growth..

You look at the scratch and completely miss the diamond.
-Raphie Frank
 
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... Snip

Agreed. Especially with sweeping landscapes as it's difficult to get a camera lens to record the same overall sharpness that you perceive with the human eye. The idea that it's variations of focus/out of focus that creates sharpness doesn't really work because in the real world we do not see in terms of focus and out of focus. Also you can only really alter the perception of sharpness within some very real limits as you have a memory of seeing sharpness to compare anything against (unless you have a blurred mind). All it really points to is how to use the limitations of a camera to best effect (or why you can't just make it up as you go along ;)).

But what if I made the same argument but said variations in local acutance, or apparent sharpness instead instead of sharp/soft.

The difference is that I still see the effect of sharpness as being variations within an image and not an absolute quality. You can have low resolution images that are sharp, but of course they lack detail.

Interesting and differing viewpoints.
 
Last edited:
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:

View attachment 122044

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.

The problem you have with this entire argument is it does NOT hinge on the "correct label", but rather says "this is how I use the label".

There are a LOT of terms in the world that could be up for interpretation. If you're not going to use the definition that is used by the bulk of the population, then the whole discussion goes flying out the window because no one in the conversation is working from the same bedrock.

So....... I dunno. Whatever, I guess?
 
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.
View attachment 122040

That photo looks pretty damned sharp to me.

...and probably to the majority of the population.
 
I believe perfection has been achieved. Wabi-Sabi-Wasabi-with noise.
Wabi-Sabi-Wasabi.jpg
 
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.

Good lord people.

Just do things intentionally and with purpose.

That's all.


If a lack of sharpness isn't communicating anything, then it's a distraction
 
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.

Good lord people.

Just do things intentionally and with purpose.

That's all.


If a lack of sharpness isn't communicating anything, then it's a distraction

So, "Do what works."

Seems reasonable.

Which means no one will do it.
 
Not really. I mean don't just aim the camera out into the willywads and carelessly make exposures without paying any mind to where the focus is.

If that means throwing away an otherwise decisive moment then yes.

People need to stop making excuses for bad photography.
 
Not really. I mean don't just aim the camera out into the willywads and carelessly make exposures without paying any mind to where the focus is.

If that means throwing away an otherwise decisive moment then yes.

People need to stop making excuses for bad photography.

Need to rewind the thread about 10 pages, make this the second post, then lock the thread.
 
Not really. I mean don't just aim the camera out into the willywads and carelessly make exposures without paying any mind to where the focus is.

If that means throwing away an otherwise decisive moment then yes.

People need to stop making excuses for bad photography.

Need to rewind the thread about 10 pages, make this the second post, then lock the thread.
Not really. I mean don't just aim the camera out into the willywads and carelessly make exposures without paying any mind to where the focus is.

If that means throwing away an otherwise decisive moment then yes.

People need to stop making excuses for bad photography.
People need to stop thinking they are the last word on what is good and bad in this world and let everyone decide for themselves what they like and don't like.
 
Not really. I mean don't just aim the camera out into the willywads and carelessly make exposures without paying any mind to where the focus is.

If that means throwing away an otherwise decisive moment then yes.

People need to stop making excuses for bad photography.

Need to rewind the thread about 10 pages, make this the second post, then lock the thread.
Not really. I mean don't just aim the camera out into the willywads and carelessly make exposures without paying any mind to where the focus is.

If that means throwing away an otherwise decisive moment then yes.

People need to stop making excuses for bad photography.
People need to stop thinking they are the last word on what is good and bad in this world and let everyone decide for themselves what they like and don't like.

So how do you justify your comment in this post, then?
 
People need to stop thinking they are the last word on what is good and bad in this world and let everyone decide for themselves what they like and don't like.

I haven't said anything at all about what I like or don't like. I am only suggesting that a successful image start with intentional decisions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top