The obsession with sharpness

I am all for sharp images & above all top quality. Why else would I use the gear I do, obviously I want the best results possible & equipment is part of that process.
What I don't agree with is the over obsessing with sharpness.... in focus , what ever. Or for that matter dust on the sensor. To me these are minor deficiencies easily overcome.
Cartier Bresson was reputed to have questioned the modern day obsession with tack sharp images.

When a woman is looking back at pictures of her (deceased father/mother) taken 50 years before, sharpness is going to be the last thing that would occur to her.


Cheers,

Paul

I don't know why, but sharpness is one of those things that really didn't bother me that much...until I started shooting digitally. I also loved playing around with grain while I was shooting black and white film. Now to me any hint of it detracts from the picture.

While the sharpness depends on the type of photography, I agree that the over-all sharpness, produced by sharping the image against the bayer-filter, leads to a generic-looking, aka artificial look. It's weird to see sometimes moving clouds to be razor-sharp.....

Selective sharpness, or to use Bruce Fraser's words, "creative sharpness" can help a lot.

I don't think paul is talking about overall sharpness. I think it's pretty uncontroversial that "creative blur" or what they call "bokeh" (although I don't really understand the need of a japanese word in this context when they just mean "blur") is an important part of making good pictures. What I think (and paul can feel free to correct me) is true is that even if a picture is just a teeny smidgy out of overall focus, sometimes one's immediate tendency is to go "bummer" and toss it or favor a similar picture with worse expression/composition/light just because it's sharper.



I love this picture of the cat (the pose, the color) but it bothered me so much that it's not sharp when I first took it. I'm trying to get over it.

I Agree...

I think the obsession over sharp images detracts from the images themselves. I don't really care for images that are so sharp and so heavily processed that they look more like 'digital art' than a photograph. But, I am somewhat 'old school' in my approach to my images. I do everything possible to get the shot right 'in-camera', so that I have to do very little PP on them. I shot film far longer than digital, so I guess that's where it comes from.

I find the sharpness obsession really funny when it comes to wide angle lenses, and wide open shooting. I see all the complaints of 'it isn't sharp in the corners wide open' and can't help but think 'who cares'? For me at least, if I am shooting wide open, whatever is in the corners of an image isn't a part of what I'm trying to capture or the feeling I want to convey.

Just my two cents.

It is a mental exercise, related to the technology. Before digital cameras, folk didn't post many pictures on the web. If the image is for web use, then the viewer's eye will capture the whole image, sharpness of the image is important, since the image on screen takes up only a small portion of the field of view. Now, for the folk who think that a 10 Mp camera is always better than an 8 Mp camera, then all they will look for is sharpness, since the cameras are not sold on 'this camera gives a better composed image than that one'. However, if it makes them happy, then fine by me.

Angelica - here you go http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

Best wishes,

Ray

yea I think you guys get the general idea of where I an coming from. Len addressed one of the points that particularly bothers me. The thinking that a lens may be soft at the edges, sharper stopped dpwn & on it goes. A lens I own for example (16-35Lll) is probably considered deficient in some manner.
Foe me, I take a photo with the tools I have. Invariably a pro body & a "L" series lens which results in a properly exposed, sharp image. I love it, the client loves it...........Ka ching ka ching (sound of till ringing)
Now that same image in some cases in which it my be carefully scrutnized by a shooter who looks for problems.... well, he is going to find some. That will be an issue, for me it is so what ?
Now to give an example. I have posted a few images in a thread in the portrait section entitled "cute girl"
Go in & have a look. Examine it minutely. To me they look sharp, but to the scrutinzer, who knows, there may be a problem. Let me know what you think.
My point is, & it is partly bought about by a recent whinge session here on the dust/sensor issue. Well my point is that there is just too much energy expended on issues that really don't rate a mention.
Having said that, I guess just by raising the point here I have done the very thing I was speaking out about.
But really, I do find it more interesting than anything else. ANd then, if you know me, you know that I just can't resist having a dig when I observe the obsessing with these & other petty technicalities.
Ultimately, I am saying, enjoy your photography & don't be bothered by the limitations of your gear.

Cheers,

Paul

Hi Angelica

I agree with you, I love this shot of the cat, the diagonal line through the frame, the way his/her paws are tucked in, also the softness emphasises the lovely green eyes, I wouldn't worry about the lack of sharpness, it works really nicely as is, a tender image, well done!

I agree, but I feel fhere are different types of sharpness and different types of soft...

I think what most of us are "obsessed" with, is at least knowing our lens is "sharp enough" and therefore not defective. However, the disconnect occurs IMO when this is taken to the extreme mentality of if lens X is sharper than lens Y, I'm buying X regardless of other factors.

Additionally, I think a lens that renders the oof areas in a clumpy, ugly fshion makes the entire image look somehow poor. In this, I look for lenses that are at least reasonably sharp and more importantly, render smooth out of focus areas. Surprisingly, many of my Canon lenses are NOT the latest and greatest "L" versions...

Here are two recent images to illustrate my point. Both are done with a Canon 5D and neither lens cost me more than $350. Can you guess which lenses were used? BIG HINT: They are both Canon lenses, neither is an "L", one of them has a reputation as one of the worst lenses Canon has ever made and the other is often regailed as the bargain of the Canon line

First shot:



Second shot:



Cheers,

28-90 and 50mm 1.8, do I get a prize?

Hi Ben: Good guesses but they're both wrong

I would guess that one is the 100mm f2.8 macro. Not sure what the other could be.

Richard

50 1.4 & 28-135 is

Cheers,

Paul

Richard -- Nope

Paul -- Nope again, x 2

And I'm surprised since this shouldn't be this hard!

(Hint: I love to shoot with primes!)