When did razor sharp images.....

[icassell]

If you have ever seen a large Ansel Adams exhibition you can see for yourself that the pictures are generally very sharp, perfectly exposed, with meticulous control of the DOF and, in the main, terrifically boring.

Having just gone to an Ansel Adams show at the Phoenix Art Museum last weekend (about the 5th show of his that I've seen), I would take exception to your "boring" comment. I find very little of his exhibited work boring.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

"When did razor sharp images..... become popular?"

A long time ago. Plenty of photographers shot Kodachrome 25 which was a very sharp film. Most of us tried to use the slowest film possible to minimize the grain which, in film, cannot be totally eradicated. Some situations call for faster films and the grain starts to show. And grain, compared to digital images with no noise can give the impression of a softer image.

But the biggest progress has been made, imho, in the printing industry. Quality art books were the realm of a few publishing companies. Most of what was available as art books was not very good. Digital has changed that to a certain degree.

But, as someone suggested, you need to look at actual prints to see actual sharpness. One of the things that has surprised me the most here on TPF is how few people actually seem to go to museums and galleries. Film photography was obvioulsy not meant to be viewed on a computer monitor and, to be honest, even in the age of digital I think it still is not. Think of the number of people complaining that their images got soft after going through their images hosting sites. Thinks also of the number of cheap monitors out there.

AF and the newfangled multi-point focusing systems certainly have nothing to do with the sharpness. If you couldn't focus your camera in the age of manual, you would not have gotten very far as a photog.

DOF has nothing to do with sharpness either. The area of the image that is in focus is either in focus or not. And the comparison to vinyl lovers is not very good. Music lovers love music whether it is digital or analog. People with an ear can make the difference between digital and analog. There are snobs everywhere so they are present in the music world and they should just be ignored. But to say that digital music lovers love the quality is a joke: MP3s are about the same quality as my cassettes and that is what most people listen to

To get back to sharpness, there has been quite a bit of worrying in the TV and movie world about HD because of the extreme sharpness. And a recent self portrait post by O|||||||O reminded me of this when someone mentioned his pores. Do I really want to see his pores? I remember an article about the porn industry being quite worried about all this sharpness...

I totally believe that the sharpness thing is an amateur problem. As mentioned by others here, it is one thing that is easy to grasp so we want sharpness when we have no or little idea of the rest of photography. I am with The_Traveler on Ansel Adams. Perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp, perfectly boring. I can look at one or two of his images but I would never take the time to visit a show. Someone once offered me a couple of his prints as payment for a job and, to his utter amazement, I said no.

ottor mention of horizon is the exact same, imo. I had never heard so many people totally obsessed with horizon lines until I joined this place. I am no fan of tilted photos for no reasonbut a slightly off horizon line, I would not even notice most of the time.

Another that has been mentioned is that they were time when softness was the desired thing. And, yes icassell, I used the vaseline trick myself a few times. And I'm sorry I also find Adams boring. To each his own.

Very interesting thread.

 

[icassell]

And I'm sorry I also find Adams boring. To each his own.

.

Not a problem. As you say, to each his own.


I had forgotten about vaseline until this thread came up.

 

[Josh66]

:thumbup:

To get back to sharpness, there has been quite a bit of worrying in the TV and movie world about HD because of the extreme sharpness. And a recent self portrait post by O|||||||O reminded me of this when someone mentioned his pores. Do I really want to see his pores? I remember an article about the porn industry being quite worried about all this sharpness...

I'm offended that you don't want to see my pores.

To be honest, unless I shot with a pinhole camera, it would have been unavoidable in that particular case.
(Shooting wide open *might* have made my pores out of focus though... Not sure, didn't try it.)

---


I do like sharp pictures, but they don't have to be razor sharp for me.

Focus is much more important than sharpness to me.

Hey, I bought the Canon 135mm Soft Focus lens (no way I could afford the other (L) 135mm at the time...), and I actually use the soft focus features of it.
(Pretty much just spherical aberration on command.)

That lens probably is the least used on in my bag, but I still do use it. (BTW - It's not always soft focus, it can take sharp pictures too.)

Now, what were you saying about porn? Let's talk about that.

 

[Iron Flatline]

There is another difference that people forget to mention - razor-sharp focus in color film was impossible because the different color emulsions laid in different planes on the celluloid. On a micro-meter level your reds were sharp but the rest might have been minimally soft... that is virtually impossible to emulate with digital.

 

[Iron Flatline]

LOL, just was forwarded this link by another photographer as an example of work she really loves.

Anna Wolf, who's self-esteemed would be crushed into a fine powder by some of the photographers here (many of whom surprisingly never post their own images...)

Cropping choices, rule-of-thirds, flare, fill light, sharpness.... Wonderful.

 

[Chris of Arabia]

LOL, just was forwarded this link by another photographer as an example of work she really loves.

Anna Wolf, who's self-esteemed would be crushed into a fine powder by some of the photographers here (many of whom surprisingly never post their own images...)

Cropping choices, rule-of-thirds, flare, fill light, sharpness.... Wonderful.

That stuff very much works for me too. Some of the stuff I most enjoy looking at currently comes from joannablu across at flickr. Much like Anna Wolf, her stuff breaks every rule going, if it ever even knew them. Subject matter and sense of place dominate in all aspects of her work, technicalities just being a means to an end.

For my own work, it feels trapped in the world of the engineer, with no real spirit or meaning to it. I'm trying to break that down more these days, but there's a long way to go.

Did you get the PM btw Yoram?

 

[Iron Flatline]

I did brother, VERY sorry for not responding. The place looks wonderful, think I'll try it and report upon my return.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

lol, this should be asked over at dpreview....


i bet that's where the "sharpness is the most critical aspect" comment came from, because that's the only thing anyone there cares about. It could be a picture of the front of a mcdonalds, and if it's perfectly sharp from a D3x and 14-24, than it's automatically elevated to the highest ranks.

You want to see sh*t pictures, look at the DPReview forums..

but it's OK, they're SHARP! IT'S GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY, the self portraits shot on the D3x, 24-70, and the digitally inserted steaming pool they're standing in, GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY!

 

[inTempus]

LOL, just was forwarded this link by another photographer as an example of work she really loves.

Anna Wolf, who's self-esteemed would be crushed into a fine powder by some of the photographers here (many of whom surprisingly never post their own images...)

Cropping choices, rule-of-thirds, flare, fill light, sharpness.... Wonderful.

I like many of those shots too. Great feeling to many of them.

 

[hower610]

I don't care if they are technically perfect ... that does not make a great image.

Best statement I have seen in a while :thumbup:

 

[thoughtcryme]

I think photographers today also put so much emphasis on the equipment they use, that an image that could be seen as "soft" would mean they aren't living up to the capabilities of the expensive equipment they own.
DSLR's and assorted lenses, lights, lighting equipment, these things have become material possessions now.
Digital imaging has brought photography into the instant gratification realm.
It used to be that you made your shots using the right tool for the job, then there was a wait for the lab to process your film, or if you had access to a darkroom it took you a little time to see your results.
Now that it's all digital for the most part, you don't have to plan your shots so much.
If a shot is a little too soft for your liking, unsharp mask it or high pass it and it's good.
Many times you see those razor sharp images on one of the many social networking sites.
Knowing it's gonna be processed once you upload it, you sharpen it beforehand because some of those sites really demolish the photo.
And as has been mentioned, a photo looks alot sharper when it's cut down to a 1/3 of it's original size.
Just toggle between 'actual pixels' and 'fit to screen' in PS to see that in action.

Those photos by Anna Wolf are really great!
Just scrolling through her page, I've never seen a photo on this forum that rivals her better shots.
I mean no offense by that, there are many great photos here by many people.

But anyone who goes to an internet forum and allows the people there to influence their work by virtue of personal opinion, or their attitude toward their work, is a fool.
You should know what you want from your work.
And if this forum can help you get that, great.
But you can't let people here tell you what you should want, or make you want more or less from your own work.

 

[Early]

I didn't get into photography until the late 70's, and I don't ever remember sharpness not being an issue. Sure, portrait photographers would sometimes opt for some softness, specifically for older women, or from aesthetic reason. There were even lenses made for that, or the would grease up a filter for the purpose.

As far as unsharp images winding up in print, I'm sure the editors selected the sharpest images from a selection as long as the photo met other criteria.

If we're seeing sharper images today, and I'm not convinced that we are, it could be that the quality of lenses has gotten better, especially zooms. It's also probable that getting the image onto the printed page has become better technically.

 

[Hamtastic]

Sharp images have always been popular. It's easy enough to go to an art museum and see many examples of pre-film process photographs that are razor sharp, as well as lot's of sharp film photographs.

Sharpness and over saturated color are like sweets for the eyes. Most people like it in general, but some get tired of it and lose their sweet-tooth, while others never do. I like sharp, but my tastes have grown to appreciate other flavors too. Sometimes a sharp image is a requirement. Sometimes it's optional.

Look up the pictorialist photographers. They felt that a sharp photograph indicated too much of the device to be art. The F/64 Group (1930s ?) were some of the first to push the idea that sharp, in focus photos could be fine art. It caught on pretty quick, and pretty soon 99.9% of conversations about photography were about sharpness.

"I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -Henri Cartier Bressonhttp://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=98&name=Cartier-Bresson,Henri

 

[patrickt]

Edward Weston did a portrait of President Orozco of Mexico. The portrait is famous and well-regarded. If is a tad blurred. It was late in the afternoon, the lens was very slow, and there was a bit of movement. Edward Weston's comment, when asked about this, that the photo was "practically satisfactory". I appreciate his attitude. A few years ago I saw an exhibit with this photo. Yes, it was a bit blurred. It couldn't be enlarge without losing what it had. But, it was "practically satisfactory."

Would Edward Weston have preferred a tack sharp print. Of course. But, yuo can't always get it. It is a goal to shoot for. Any blurring should be intentional.