When did razor sharp images.....

[Mulewings~]

To look at some of the classics you can see some incredible photos called 100 Photographs that Changed the World by Life Magazine....

Sharp? Some are, Powerful...oh yeah...

Photography will continue to change and evolve.

 

[usayit]

Digital age == Pixel Peeper age

 

[Crazydad]

I think part of it may also be that, for the hobbyist, sharpness is one aspect that is easy to control. With 51 point AF systems and the advances in lens making there is no reason for a picture to not be sharp - unless the photographer wants it soft.

Consistently good composition on the other hand, requires a lot more work and is much harder to achieve. One look at my photos will tell you I have a long way to go in that area, but with the right equipment a tack sharp image is fairly easy. It may not be interesting, but it would be sharp.

 

[molested_cow]

On another forum there was a tread asking people what in a photograph is the most important to them. Many said "sharpness".

I then realized that it seems depth of field has become an enemy to many photographers, mostly digital.

So I started a thread asking if you are a technologist or artist. The thread wasn't too popular.

I think this is like the difference between people who like vinyl VS HD digital audio. With the so-called analog sound, it's the music that lovers appreciate. However with digital audio lovers, it's often the quality of the sound they are after.

In photography, I cannot make a clear cut. If I am shooting nature, I'd like my images to be sharp. If I am doing street shots and portraits, then I want to play with depth of field. Either way, I don't make judgment based on the technicality of the photography. I care most about the story the photograph conveys. Story is something no technology can foster. It's about the right moment with the right eye using the right way to present it. There's no rule that defines how it should be done.

I loves my F1.2 50mm because it can give me somewhat soft photos when I turn it to the largest aperture. Since I mostly use it for cultural themed photographs, it's perfect.

I just think that when images get too sharp, it feel very impersonal, almost strange, because that's not how your brain reads images presented by your eyes. In many ways, film, due to current scanning technology, helps to tone down the sharpness. It feels much more real and satisfying. It's the subject that is talking to me, not the pixels.

For the most part when I show my photos to friends who don't know how I take my photos, they never thought they are looking at scanned negatives. They are usually surprised when I tell them so. My point is, I don't really care if they can tell by looking at the images. All I care about is if they received the messages that I tried to convey through the photographs.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Sharpness is highly overrated.

 

[Garbz]

One word: Marketing.

Sharpness became very relevant when one camera produced sharper images than the other and some clever company decided to shout that from the rooftops. This is the same for a lot of things. Megapixels! How many people here have heard a comment that someone's point and shoot is better than your DSLR because it has more megapixels?

Marketing dictates people's ideas. Just look at the fashion industry. It is they who decide what colour consumers think look good. Just when did those grandpa pants with cross hatch patterns become popular amongst teenagers anyway?

Why do a lot of girls think that men won't love them if they don't have the body-fat of a 12 year old Nigerian boy?
Why do people munch tablets day and night trying to be healthy while avoiding eating apples?

I think that as soon as camera manufacturers put soft focus software filters into their standard effect options in DSLRs and Point and Shoots and advertise that fact, soft will be the new sharp.

It's all about marketing.

I think this is like the difference between people who like vinyl VS HD digital audio. With the so-called analog sound, it's the music that lovers appreciate. However with digital audio lovers, it's often the quality of the sound they are after.

As someone with both a large vinyl and CD collection I have a theory on this. Digital gave us instant access to a point on the album. How many times have you had someone grab their iPod and say "hey listen to this bit..." This just isn't done on vinyl because changing track mid record becomes a complete event in itself.

As such vinyl lovers tend listen to albums, where as MP3 lovers tend to listen to ... "bits". At least that's my observation.

 

[The_Traveler]

I think part of it may also be that, for the hobbyist, sharpness is one aspect that is easy to control. With 51 point AF systems and the advances in lens making there is no reason for a picture to not be sharp - unless the photographer wants it soft.

Consistently good composition on the other hand, requires a lot more work and is much harder to achieve. One look at my photos will tell you I have a long way to go in that area, but with the right equipment a tack sharp image is fairly easy. It may not be interesting, but it would be sharp.

I think that Crazydad has touched upon the important issue - sharpness is a quasi-value that is easy to measure. Photography is very difficult; it is hard to produce pictures that are 'meaningful' or have an impact. It is equally hard for a viewer to say why she or he likes or is impressed by an image. So for both the shooter and the viewer, sharpness becomes a metric that is relatively easily attained - and it takes only some skill and not any real talent.

I know several people who, after years of shooting SLR level pictures, have switched to 4 x 5 and big tripods so they can get ultra-sharp pictures with perfect control of DOF and the pictures are exactly that but they are also intensely boring.

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.

OTOH, street shooters can often produce the most exciting images and the issues of sharpness and dof control are much less important because the image itself is exciting and stirs the emotion and the viewer doesn't have to sink back on technical issues to decide the goodness or worth of the image.

Lew

 

[gsgary]

I never shot film other than when I was a youngster shooting 110 film developed at Pamida. LOL Surely film isn't that much softer....is it?

I you look at enough old B+W shots you will see plenty that are very sharp Henry Cartier Bresson used to shoot some razor sharp and some with blur
I shot this Ilford HP5 pushed to ISO1600 and i think it is quite sharp

 

[ottor]

I think it’s a combination of the Internet (Forums) and the Digital age where ‘everyone’s a photographer these days… Am I wrong, or was the main focus of the neat older (70’s) photographs mostly the composition and subject matter of the picture?

Everyone remembers that photograph of the poor little naked burned girl running away from a Viet Nam village – If there were Internet Forums back then, I couldn’t image Ansel Adams sitting down and posting away…… “Nice bokeh but meh, you’re horizons crooked” ..

We’ve all become critics – because we can be now… In my opinion, a sharper picture is more pleasing to view (with many exceptions) and since we can now make public comments on it, ….. we tend to do so. Sharpness is an easy to see feature, even at the most beginner level, and that allows anyone to make a comment.. - It’s just the advanced technology, and the ability to share our opinions that’s changed…

Of course, due to inflation, my .02 cents aren't worth anything these days either....

 

[Iron Flatline]

No, no... Leica users have been blathering about sharpness since the 50s, and taking boring pictures. Sharpness is great and important, except for when it isn't. I do agree though that the hobbyist demands sharpness as some kind of attainable visible metric.

Having said that, you're bound for a frosty Thanksgiving if you take a tack-sharp picture of your mother-in-law. A certain softness is always a good idea when shooting people over the age of 28.

 

[ottor]

Having said that, you're bound for a frosty Thanksgiving if you take a tack-sharp picture of your mother-in-law. A certain softness is always a good idea when shooting people over the age of 28.

OK ........ made my day! :lmao:

However ................................ so true!

 

[Joves]

Having said that, you're bound for a frosty Thanksgiving if you take a tack-sharp picture of your mother-in-law. A certain softness is always a good idea when shooting people over the age of 28.

Yeah no kidding! I had a woman I know tell me I was a bad photographer because it was too sharp. Funny how capturing an image of someone will show things you dont see in the mirror. Or dont want to see.

 

[inTempus]

Everyone remembers that photograph of the poor little naked burned girl running away from a Viet Nam village – If there were Internet Forums back then, I couldn’t image Ansel Adams sitting down and posting away…… “Nice bokeh but meh, you’re horizons crooked” ..

The horizon wasn't crooked, I just Googled it. Jesh, give the photog a little credit.

But it is soft... I mean really soft. I don't think it's as powerful as it could be if it were razor sharp (and in color).

 

[gsgary]

Everyone remembers that photograph of the poor little naked burned girl running away from a Viet Nam village – If there were Internet Forums back then, I couldn’t image Ansel Adams sitting down and posting away…… “Nice bokeh but meh, you’re horizons crooked” ..

The horizon wasn't crooked, I just Googled it. Jesh, give the photog a little credit.

But it is soft... I mean really soft. I don't think it's as powerful as it could be if it were razor sharp (and in color).

I think you are missing something, he probably had Tri-X film in his camera which is ISO400 he can't just bump up the iso to get a higher shutter speed, well he could but all the shots before would be processed at the wrong speed

 

[icassell]

There was a time when people purposely softened images... like the old B&W days in Hollywood.

Who knows, but I fall into that category that prefers razor sharp focus in most cases. I want to see very detail... probably because as technology improves our demands increase.

Who else remembers putting vaseline on your UV filter for a softening effect?