Tyranny of Sharpness

Status
Not open for further replies.

chuasam

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Feb 9, 2012
Messages
3,588
Reaction score
928
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept
– Henri Cartier Bresson

So many people here are obsessed with the idea of sharpness and a sharp image without blur.
Why is that?
slight blur makes it more interesting.
Ellen von Uwerth is known for her slightly blurry images and she prefers some motion and life in her work.
the great Lillian Bassman often introduces lovely blur and grain and blown out highlights in her images.

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

Yet here, people seem to jump on the perceived blur and make much ado about how one can hold the camera steady. People are unwilling to push photographic conventions and see what they can do.

Post some of your favourite blurry images that you took.

To be honest, it's been way too late since I've taken a truly blurry shot on purpose.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_1365.jpg
    DSC_1365.jpg
    273.3 KB · Views: 275
Most people who see blurry need glasses. Most of the rest of us prefer things in focus. On the other hand you can have movement but things are still in focus. Such as this.
6176983226_ac30418a4c.jpg


Or you can have everything a little blurry. It depends on what you want to do.
6151375531_54829e1c05.jpg

But in general, in focus is good. Over sharpening is no good as then that appears non-normal. It's OK to experiment and see what works for you.
 
It's a matter of technical execution and artistic choice.

The problem is that MANY people will rationalize a failure to execute technically as an artistic choice.

"It's not that I didn't focus properly or choose the right shutter speed, it's that I WANT the image to look blurry."

There is NOTHING wrong with a blurry photo that is actually done so for a reason.

However, most of the blurry images you see that people claim are done artistically... also fail artistically... which tends to indicate that it was just a failure to execute.
 
I have one simple rule: If it doesn't have a sharp subject don't bother showing it to me.
 
Use a Holga and don't even think about it. The IQ is generally accepted for what it is, part of it's charm I suppose.

Holga summer 2015.jpg
 
IMHO, it depends on the purpose, type, and mood of the photos. Commercial photography will have a higher focus on the technical aspect, where lifestyle photography will focus more on the story telling aspect.
 
I have one simple rule: If it doesn't have a sharp subject don't bother showing it to me.
My rule is : if the best thing about a photo is that the subject is sharp, go show it to SCraig instead cuz I'd probably think it's boring.
 
If you think a photo is boring because it is sharp, you're EXACTLY as bad as the people who say it's not good because it's sharp... only in another direction.

Like nearly every great controversy in life... the real answer is always somewhere in between the two extremes. If you can't see and acknowledge both sides of the argument, then you're a as much a part of the problem as the guy who is on the other side of it.

(and no offense to SCraig, who I believe was partly joking) :)
 
As I am learning, there are many things that make a good image. Sharpness or lack of it is just one component. I think this is what the Masters are trying to convey.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
*LOL* NO.
this is what I meant Ellen Von Unwerth |<i>Motion & Blur</i>

Images that are sharp can be so boring

I think those pictures work really well in that genre because the blur seems to accomplish two things: first, it creates the feeling that the model was caught unaware, like she was just in the middle of a happy moment, not a photo shoot. It creates the feeling of spontaneity and authenticity. It brings life to the image - a stark contrast to so much of the ultra-staged and static fashion photography usually seen in magazines. (Huh - just went back to the link and actually read the text this time, and apparently this is also what the blog author said as well :) )

Second, I feel that the blur also contributes to the feeling that we are looking at a memory. When we have a flash of an image in our minds, remembering an event, things are never in sharp focus, and the images are fleeting. Her pictures almost give that sense - not only is the subject moving/caught in a moment, but the image itself is fleeting. And because they all seem to be happy memories, we almost feel nostalgic, peeking into someone else's happy memories.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Most reactions

Back
Top