# Tyranny of Sharpness



## chuasam

*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.


----------



## AlanKlein

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.





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




  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.


----------



## katsrevenge

Like this?


----------



## manaheim

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.


----------



## jake337




----------



## manaheim

lol


----------



## chuasam

jake337 said:


>


*LOL* NO.
this is what I meant http://blog.ricecracker.net/2011/01/04/unwerth-blur/

Images that are sharp can be so boring


----------



## SCraig

I have one simple rule: If it doesn't have a sharp subject don't bother showing it to me.


----------



## jake337

chuasam said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *LOL* NO.
> this is what I meant Ellen Von Unwerth |<i>Motion & Blur</i>
> 
> Images that are sharp can be so boring
Click to expand...



Just messing with ya friend


----------



## jcdeboever

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.


----------



## Vtec44

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.


----------



## chuasam

SCraig said:


> 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.


----------



## manaheim

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)


----------



## jcdeboever

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


----------



## limr

chuasam said:


> *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.


----------



## KC1

No one can say what is good to someone else or what another person should like or try to copy, but can only say what they like.
No one can say what is or isn't artistic. Not everyone likes all art, but its still art. Its created to make viewers think or feel something, so if you look at it and think, 'that's not art' it is and it was successful art.


----------



## manaheim

KC1 said:


> No one can say what is good to someone else or what another person should like or try to copy, but can only say what they like.
> No one can say what is or isn't artistic. Not everyone likes all art, but its still art. Its created to make viewers think or feel something, so if you look at it and think, 'that's not art' it is and it was successful art.



I don't agree. People say things like that a lot, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

People who are inexperienced often will say "I decide what is art, if you don't get it, then you just don't get it".

There's a problem there. Art that doesn't effectively convey anything to anyone is no more artistic than a wall or a brick in a walkway. It's there. It doesn't get our attention. It doesn't contribute anything.

So either EVERYTHING is art, or there is a specific set of rules or accomplishments that art must attain in order to BE art. The former is obviously not true.

Admittedly, this is a bit of a strawman argument, since I'm saying "it's either this or that", and I acknowledge that. There could be a third thing. I. however, personally don't see it.


----------



## chuasam

manaheim said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can say what is good to someone else or what another person should like or try to copy, but can only say what they like.
> No one can say what is or isn't artistic. Not everyone likes all art, but its still art. Its created to make viewers think or feel something, so if you look at it and think, 'that's not art' it is and it was successful art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. People say things like that a lot, but just saying it doesn't make it true.
> 
> People who are inexperienced often will say "I decide what is art, if you don't get it, then you just don't get it".
> 
> There's a problem there. Art that doesn't effectively convey anything to anyone is no more artistic than a wall or a brick in a walkway. It's there. It doesn't get our attention. It doesn't contribute anything.
> 
> So either EVERYTHING is art, or there is a specific set of rules or accomplishments that art must attain in order to BE art. The former is obviously not true.
> 
> Admittedly, this is a bit of a strawman argument, since I'm saying "it's either this or that", and I acknowledge that. There could be a third thing. I. however, personally don't see it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been to the Tate Modern in the UK?
Apparently a blank piece of cardboard on the wall can be Art.


----------



## Derrel

limr said:
			
		

> Ellen Von Unwerth |<i>Motion & Blur</i>



_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 happ_y _memories._[/QUOTE]

Von Unwerth uses the slow shutter speed blur effect like a hammer, and her typical backstage type images, of lingerie-clad, skinny, highly made-up fashion models, is one of her trademarks. I* LOVE HER PICTURES!!!* The blurred images she so often shoots really do make the photos seem, for lack of a better word, evocative. Maybe of memories. Maybe of imaginations we have about the unseen world of fashion and show business and burlesque. By revealing less, by showing things less-clearly, she's using the less-is-more concept very well. By making the fine, fine details a bit less than Fashion Magazine Sharp_, _her photos become more iconic, more fantasy-like, more imagination-like; I think Von Unwerth's style works very well in the type of publications where her photos are actually printed, and then seen, in fashion magazines, and seen by people who would love to be in those situations, who can for a brief moment, envision their face,on that body, in those clothes, in that scene--if only for a moment. I don't think of memories, I think of fantasies*,* of envisionings, and so on.

The thing is, Von Unwerth's photos are shown to targeted audiences, not the mass market. She shoots images for the kind of people who read fashion magazines. I wonder how her images would come off if the subjects were not fashion models and famous actors, but were instead blurred shots of men in coveralls, laying bricks, repairing engines, and building homes and so on? She's a great fashion shooter, and in this genre, her style and techniques serve a purpose; the blurring strips away the specificity of the model, and makes the model appear more like an archetype, rather than the five thousandth picture of Candice Swanepoel or whoever. I think allowing the fashion magazine readers/viewers to mentally "insert themselves" into the scenes is why she is so popular with magazine editors.


----------



## JacaRanda

chuasam said:


> So many people here are obsessed with the idea of sharpness and a sharp image without blur.



I post on Facebook where nobody cares about blur or sharpness, and they all pretend to love whatever I do.   It's my happy place.

Do you like blurry birds?  I have 1000's of those to share.


----------



## Vtec44

I shoot f1.6 98.76% of the time.  I don't know what sharpness is!


----------



## limr

Since the OP requested blurry pictures, I'll post one of my favorites of Zelda:




Day 88 - Blurry Zelda by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## limr

I also like the blur in this shot as well (which was intentional, btw, though I wish I could figure out how to get rid of that pipe without it looking like a hack job.)




Ladies off to lunch by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## Derrel

800mm hummingbird at twilight.jpg   (hummingbird just outside my door at twilight, 400/3.5 + 2x extender)




City Bus and Wm Shakespeare.jpg    (iPhone limited DOF shot in traffic)






Columbia Gorge I-84 trucking.jpg   (Panning on dark day)





Twilight, helicopter, 2004





Blue Ocean, 2012






Whimsical Glass, 2003. (Intentional strong camera movement during exposure, aka "ICM".)

I am a fan of expressive movement and blur.Above is a handful of photos I have previously posted to TPF.


----------



## katsrevenge

jcdeboever said:


> 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.
> 
> View attachment 121339


Nice.

Was thinking about getting some Holga lens for my DSLR. Thought it might be fun. The digital Holgas looked neat too.. but at that price I at least want a image preview.


----------



## KC1

limr said:


> Since the OP requested blurry pictures, I'll post one of my favorites of Zelda:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Day 88 - Blurry Zelda by limrodrigues, on Flickr


That's adorable.


----------



## Derrel

Some more blurry/not-so-sharp photos that I have previously posted on TPF




A winter sunrise, shot by zooming during a slow-speed exposure with VR enabled.




Christmas Draws Near, 2007.




Plastic Fork Though Paper.   (Part of Lens Across America part 3.)




Latourelle Falls, View Through a Fern, 2012.


----------



## limr

KC1 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the OP requested blurry pictures, I'll post one of my favorites of Zelda:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Day 88 - Blurry Zelda by limrodrigues, on Flickr
> 
> 
> 
> That's adorable.
Click to expand...


Thanks


----------



## KC1

manaheim said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can say what is good to someone else or what another person should like or try to copy, but can only say what they like.
> No one can say what is or isn't artistic. Not everyone likes all art, but its still art. Its created to make viewers think or feel something, so if you look at it and think, 'that's not art' it is and it was successful art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art that doesn't effectively convey anything to anyone is no more artistic than a wall or a brick in a walkway.
Click to expand...


That's just the thing, neither of us can possibly know what will touch someone else's heart, we cannot ever know what will convey a message to someone else, the best we can say is "It isn't art to me" so you can never say a thing doesn't effectively convey a message to anyone, unless we are all people and I don't think I am.
It's even hard to tell after 40 years of marriage what my husband will like and I think I know him pretty well by now but there are still surprises every once in a while. 
That's a good thing, by the way.


----------



## manaheim

Yeah. That's just nonsense. But whatever.


----------



## Tim Tucker

I think that there is a lot of mis-understanding and mistaken discussion about sharpness.

With modern digital cameras sharpness is measurable as an absolute quality, and this is what some mistakenly chase.

There is no such thing as absolute sharpness in an image. Look at any image with a magnifier, or at 100% on your screen. Things slightly outside the plane of focus begin to look blurred. Look closer and you'll see the image is only made up of coloured dots, the appearance of sharpness disappears. Of course sharper lenses create greater apparent sharpness in the image, greater resolution creates finer acutance.

Images only have an _apparent_ sharpness, they do not possess any _absolute_ sharpness. They only appear sharp when viewed at a certain distance, look too closely and the illusion fades. The absolute sharpness of a lens does not transfer to the image, it becomes apparent, an illusion.

Because many think that sharpness in your image is an absolute quality they sometimes try and make an image absolutely sharp. This leads to the mis-understanding of the relative nature of apparent sharpness in images. Within limits you can create the illusion of something appearing sharper than it actually is by contrasting it against something slightly softer.

For example:






Many of the best and sharpest images actually rely on this because sharpness is relative. The eye detects within the image a slight change in acutance and sees part of the image as _sharper _than the rest.

I think many don't understand this change in the nature of sharpness from the image focussed on the sensor (or whatever) to the image you view on your screen or in print.


----------



## table1349

This is an absolutely sharp image.  So sharp you could shave with it.


----------



## chuasam

Great photos Derrel. Thanks.


----------



## jcdeboever

Francis Bacon on a cell phone. 





Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Vtec44

Missed focus so I call it art!


----------



## mctb

I generally like a sharply focused subject. I do, though, appreciate when it is not.

I shot this wide open and unfocused on purpose and quite like it.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple




----------



## chuasam

sharpness would have taken away from this


----------



## vintagesnaps

I looked up the photographer; here's her page on the website of an agency that represents her.
http://2bmanagement.com/ellen-von-unwerth/
I don't see a lot of blur being used as much as a variety of specialty effects. Seems like those are used for a purpose. She seems to know how to frame shots and how to use perspective and vantage point even if there's no blur or other specialty effect.

I think in the last example, that subject works with the blur, but it could have been better framed lower and probably tighter (to have less ceiling showing and a little less background in the shot). So it's a good example of how to use a particular effect, and it could have been even more effective the better the framing and perspective and composition.


----------



## Overread

Sharpness is a tool like any other.

On forums you generally get a lot of beginners who are still earning the ropes and intermediates who might have good concepts but need wider experiences and to hone their skills. Sharpness is one of those skills many of them need to hone and practice - especially in more challenging conditions and different situations.

since a sharp shot is the most desired effect it is what most assume the photographer wanted and thus comments are made thuswise. Others might feel that the photographer is using artistic licence as a crutch and thus might also offer sharp-shot advise to better educate the photographer.




In general its a tool like any other - use it well and it works. Learn to use it and when not to use it and etc.... all that stuff.

In general most who are going to reply to a discussion on this are already advanced enough that they can choose between sharp or blurry when shooting; they already appreciate the value of blurry shots and of sharp shots thus you get a lot of circular discussion coupled with a few trolling/being stupid.


----------



## Braineack

Today I had my brand new glasses redone for the 3rd time, today was because of the poor polycarbonate lenses they used.  The softness and ca in my vision was awful.  

using tapatalk.


----------



## clel miller

chuasam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can say what is good to someone else or what another person should like or try to copy, but can only say what they like.
> No one can say what is or isn't artistic. Not everyone likes all art, but its still art. Its created to make viewers think or feel something, so if you look at it and think, 'that's not art' it is and it was successful art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree. People say things like that a lot, but just saying it doesn't make it true.
> 
> People who are inexperienced often will say "I decide what is art, if you don't get it, then you just don't get it".
> 
> There's a problem there. Art that doesn't effectively convey anything to anyone is no more artistic than a wall or a brick in a walkway. It's there. It doesn't get our attention. It doesn't contribute anything.
> 
> So either EVERYTHING is art, or there is a specific set of rules or accomplishments that art must attain in order to BE art. The former is obviously not true.
> 
> Admittedly, this is a bit of a strawman argument, since I'm saying "it's either this or that", and I acknowledge that. There could be a third thing. I. however, personally don't see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you ever been to the Tate Modern in the UK?
> Apparently a blank piece of cardboard on the wall can be Art.
Click to expand...

Yeah...the last time I was at San Francesco Museum Of Modern, was the last time for a reason. It was much better when it was housed at The War Memorial Opera House.
Anyway.....there was a big photography exhibit so I went to see that. One of the floors had all kinds of useless garbage. Like, for instance:
1.  A blank wall 30'x15'. The wall was painted white.
Hanging dead center.? .......a painters canvas that was also painted white, and in front of that...a small riser, maybe 4 inches high. It was also painted white. THAT was the exhibit. Then, there were "Art Patrons", standing in front of this party gag, contemplating the genius of it all.
2. To the right of the above Candid Camera episode, was another white wall...15' high also but longer...maybe 50' long. Down at the base of the wall, running about 20 feet long, was a piece of copper gutter. That's right, gutter...like you see on the homes of wealthy people, because it lasts so long.
On to this gutter, somebody (I suppose the "artist") had slung a bunch of mortar. Just randomly (perhaps that is where the art was)...as if the mortar were picked up by school children and thrown at a wall.
It is hard to convince people that we need to spend money on school breakfast programs, but they somehow line up, at great cost, to part with the wealth needed attack the future of common sense.


----------



## chuasam

Do not adjust your set.
I saw these 2 pieces at the Tate Modern in London.


----------



## Overread

I put the Tate Modern and its ilk down to:

1) Exceptionally poor teaching of art at schools which results in students who have childish skill sets (or really no skill set) but who pass and progress through the education system which then reinforces it as they become teachers to the new generations. 

2) Bad artists with significant wealth supporting other bad artists and building an artificial concept of art and skill

3) Very rich people wanting to move/increase their money easily. They thus promote poor quality artwork in an artificial bubble of their own creation. Thus allowing them to sell or give away artwork easily bought and sold at high value. Or they use it to invest into; the low grade cheap art being artificially boosted up in value and then sold on at higher prices (often to people in group 2) 


Art has suffered terribly in schools to the point where many consider any artistic talent (both artistic and technical) to be a mythological concept called "natural talent". Whilst we live in an age free of artistic rules which has allowed an explosion of variation in artistic expression (this includes photography); it has also resulted in almost no viable gatekeepers and thus anything and everything gets through.

You can tell a lot of bad art because it often has to come with a long lecture or essay justifying it.


Those in the computer game world might liken it to "Greenlight" on Steam - another system whereby quality control gatekeepers were removed in an effort to broaden the market; but which had the backlash effect of a lot of rubbish also getting through into the market as well.


----------



## KenC

@Overread - agree with all you say but this is not exactly new:

Marcel Duchamp, 'Fountain' 1917, replica 1964


----------



## Moly

Sharpness isn't usually an issue for me when looking at the work of others but I will admit to trashing my own images if they're not perfectly in focus when they should have been.


----------



## manaheim

Overread said:


> I put the Tate Modern and its ilk down to:
> 
> 1) Exceptionally poor teaching of art at schools which results in students who have childish skill sets (or really no skill set) but who pass and progress through the education system which then reinforces it as they become teachers to the new generations.
> 
> 2) Bad artists with significant wealth supporting other bad artists and building an artificial concept of art and skill
> 
> 3) Very rich people wanting to move/increase their money easily. They thus promote poor quality artwork in an artificial bubble of their own creation. Thus allowing them to sell or give away artwork easily bought and sold at high value. Or they use it to invest into; the low grade cheap art being artificially boosted up in value and then sold on at higher prices (often to people in group 2)
> 
> 
> Art has suffered terribly in schools to the point where many consider any artistic talent (both artistic and technical) to be a mythological concept called "natural talent". Whilst we live in an age free of artistic rules which has allowed an explosion of variation in artistic expression (this includes photography); it has also resulted in almost no viable gatekeepers and thus anything and everything gets through.
> 
> You can tell a lot of bad art because it often has to come with a long lecture or essay justifying it.
> 
> 
> Those in the computer game world might liken it to "Greenlight" on Steam - another system whereby quality control gatekeepers were removed in an effort to broaden the market; but which had the backlash effect of a lot of rubbish also getting through into the market as well.



Same problems you see in the self-publishing world for books.  Hell, I even see quality issues in books that are published professionally.  Unknown Artist B has a relationship with Popular Artist A and gets published almost exclusively for that reason.  Or Popular Artist A is so well known and published that the editors and gatekeepers are totally hands-off because the book will sell no matter how bad it is. (I can think of one name in particular here, but I won't say it because someone will drop the internet on my head) lol

It all creates one heck of a lot of noise and the good artists get buried, lost, or are never seen... which, I think is exactly that the thought process that SPAWNED this thread is creating in the world... and exactly the thought that many responders to this thread are sickened by.

It's a real problem.


----------



## chuasam

Moly said:


> Sharpness isn't usually an issue for me when looking at the work of others but I will admit to trashing my own images if they're not perfectly in focus when they should have been.


I would prefer an image capturing a moment or emotion than sharp rubbish.

_There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. _
Ansel Adams


----------



## table1349

The inverse can be said, Nothing worse than a fuzzy image of a sharp concept.  The accomplished photographer knows how to combine the those two concepts with others such as lighting etc to accomplish the desired image.


----------



## chuasam

gryphonslair99 said:


> The inverse can be said, Nothing worse than a fuzzy image of a sharp concept.  The accomplished photographer knows how to combine the those two concepts with others such as lighting etc to accomplish the desired image.


a fuzzy image of a sharp concept means that there was a concept to begin with. I would far rather have that.
I would much rather see a blurry image of a brilliant idea than a sharp image of yet another sunset.


----------



## runnah

Most photographers are technicians rather than artists.


----------



## KC1

Overread said:


> I put the Tate Modern and its ilk down to:
> 
> 1) Exceptionally poor teaching of art at schools which results in *students who have childish skill sets (or really no skill set) *but who pass and progress through the education system which then reinforces it as they become teachers to the new generations.


Yeah, like Grandma Moses, what a hack (sarcasm).
If you don't get a piece of art, it doesn't mean that no one does.


----------



## chuasam

KC1 said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> I put the Tate Modern and its ilk down to:
> 
> 1) Exceptionally poor teaching of art at schools which results in *students who have childish skill sets (or really no skill set) *but who pass and progress through the education system which then reinforces it as they become teachers to the new generations.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, like Grandma Moses, what a hack (sarcasm).
> If you don't get a piece of art, it doesn't mean that no one does.
Click to expand...

Where is the point where we admit that the emperor has no clothes?


----------



## Solarflare

chuasam said:


> *Sharpness is a bourgeois concept*
> – Henri Cartier Bresson


 That was a JOKE. Cartier-Bresson was joking because he couldnt possibly manage much sharpness with a Leica and the slow films of his time.

Theres nothing wrong with BLURR if you want it, quite on the contrary. Theres even special techniques to archieve blurr (panning). And people are crazy for bright glas with shallow depth of field to keep everything thats not of importance out of focus, preferably completely blurred.

However the glas we use should be sharp, otherwise we cannot have ANY part of the picture sharp.


----------



## clel miller

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharpness is a bourgeois concept*
> – Henri Cartier Bresson
> 
> 
> 
> That was a JOKE. Cartier-Bresson was joking because he couldnt possibly manage much sharpness with a Leica and the slow films of his time.
Click to expand...

What was he comparing it to then...if his Leica, lens, and film of the day were not capable of being sharp.?
Did he make that joke later in life.?
I thought it had more to do with him being such a mobile shooter, with a rather small negative camera.
It was his Composition and Subject matter that were of import.....and not so much "sharpness" like you might get with a bigger format.?


----------



## limr

Solarflare said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharpness is a bourgeois concept*
> – Henri Cartier Bresson
> 
> 
> 
> That was a JOKE. Cartier-Bresson was joking because he couldnt possibly manage much sharpness with a Leica and the slow films of his time.
Click to expand...


Um...what??



> However the glas we use should be sharp, *otherwise we cannot have ANY part of the picture sharp*.



So what? Sharpness is not always the ultimate goal. If I wanted at least some part of _every_ picture to be sharp, then yes, I would need the proper equipment. But sometimes I couldn't give a rat's ass about sharpness and I grab my Holga. That plastic lens certainly isn't sharp and that's fine, too.

Sharpness ain't _all_ that.


----------



## john.margetts

clel miller said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Sharpness is a bourgeois concept*
> – Henri Cartier Bresson
> 
> 
> 
> That was a JOKE. Cartier-Bresson was joking because he couldnt possibly manage much sharpness with a Leica and the slow films of his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What was he comparing it to then...if his Leica, lens, and film of the day were not capable of being sharp.?
> Did he make that joke later in life.?
> I thought it had more to do with him being such a mobile shooter, with a rather small negative camera.
> It was his Composition and Subject matter that were of import.....and not so much "sharpness" like you might get with a bigger format.?
Click to expand...

The plate cameras if his day would have been much sharper t han a Leica as would medium format cameras - especially 6x9 cameras.


----------



## chuasam

Lartigue was one of my fav photographers and his stuff is blurry too


----------



## manaheim

This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.


----------



## limr

manaheim said:


> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.



Not for nothing, but I thought that's what this thread was supposed to do? Share images that employ a method that we enjoy? Perhaps it was a mistake to post it in Discussions instead of Photo Themes, which encouraged the chatter rather than image-sharing.



chuasam said:


> Post some of your favourite blurry images that you took.


----------



## chuasam

manaheim said:


> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.


If you're fine with not pushing boundaries and working to improve - sure.


----------



## Tim Tucker

Oh you must have it, the tyranny of sharpness.

Even if you throw it away you must have it to choose not to use it. Like that lens you never use, you must have it or miss that shot you've never taken.

As I was saying before, images do not possess any sharpness, they are only a series of dots that appear sharp, magnify any image too far and sharpness disappears. Where do you stop?

Large format film cameras were the norm because mass produced lenses and film just did not take the enlargement at the time. The images appear sharper with modern film but try looking at older film with older lenses. Even now the trade off is always shutter speed and aperture, with larger format comes longer exposure which means a more static subject. This is a fact of life with film cameras. It took advances in film grain and mass produced lenses to produce the workable smaller formats such as 35mm and with them came true hand held photography. But there was a trade off, you have to magnify the image far more exposing the weaknesses in film grain and lens performance. You were also able to shoot moving subjects on the hoof, not always sharp images that don't take too much enlargement before they look soft.

But now with digital and the ability to enlarge images to ridiculous sizes on a computer screen we must have absolute sharpness because that's what matters. It's something we can't gain if it's not captured. It's needed to capture the shot at a touch of a button. It's measurable, an absolute quality, and you can look for it now. In fact so hard to some look that they even use low resolution web scans of large format images to support the argument for sharpness, 1600 x 1000 pixels, and still do not see that at that size the image has very little resolution, takes zero enlargement and has very little real sharpness or detail.

Go to an art gallery and see what some artist produce with just a brush and some canvas. Honestly, there are watercolours about (photorealism) that look sharper than most of the photos you take. How do they do that?

Creativity comes from getting around the limits of your chosen media, not capturing it by pressing a button. Technology does not enhance creativity unless you push it to limits where it fails.

Sharpness comes from understanding what makes images _appear_ sharp, and also understanding what makes them appear soft. Such as pixel peeping with your nose against the screen. Any film photographer understands the limits of enlargement in a print because they instinctively understand the limits of apparent sharpness in the image.

Of course none of that's relevant in a digital age. Images are digital, they're numbers.

Oh we must have that sharpness...


----------



## chuasam

Thank you Tim Tucker. Reminds me of a time this photographer was complaining that one lens was inferior because it wasn't as sharp right in the corner of an image, to which I asked "what are you taking photos of? Charts?"


----------



## manaheim

chuasam said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're fine with not pushing boundaries and working to improve - sure.
Click to expand...


It's the same thing I said in the other thread by you.  NICE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.

I'm perfectly capable of growing my skills without necessarily acquiescing to your particular perspective on whether or not blurry photos are good.

Again... this thread... just like the other one... you're being edgy for the sake of being edgy and playing the cute game where anyone who disagrees with you is clearly an inferior photographer or somehow "stuck in their ways".

If you're for real... and I doubt you are... then you're an example of why we have art exhibits that consist of a white canvas on a white wall.

If you're not for real, then you're really just a variant of an internet troll.

Either way, and as I said on your other thread... there have been PLENTY here that have come before you playing this game, and there will be plenty to follow.

Interestingly, in your attempts to be unique and edgy, you've pretty much just established yourself as just like all the rest.

Congratulations.


----------



## manaheim

limr said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for nothing, but I thought that's what this thread was supposed to do? Share images that employ a method that we enjoy? Perhaps it was a mistake to post it in Discussions instead of Photo Themes, which encouraged the chatter rather than image-sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post some of your favourite blurry images that you took.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Arguable. I took that as mostly just a way for him to spin the nonsense a bit.  By itself, it's not at ALL a bad exercise... just without so much of the putting people down who think that sharpness is an important part of what THEY consider to be art. 

Mind you... it's not like I'm locking the thread. Post away. There's nothing lock-worthy in the thread. It just irked me as a forum member.


----------



## KC1

limr said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for nothing, but I thought that's what this thread was supposed to do? Share images that employ a method that we enjoy? Perhaps it was a mistake to post it in Discussions instead of Photo Themes, which encouraged the chatter rather than image-sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post some of your favourite blurry images that you took.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

But he asked for others to post pictures here that are not crystal clear and 'by the book', and I liked the pictures posted so far (mostly) absolute perfect focus shouldn't be the deciding factor if something is a good work of art or not.


----------



## chuasam

KC1 said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for nothing, but I thought that's what this thread was supposed to do? Share images that employ a method that we enjoy? Perhaps it was a mistake to post it in Discussions instead of Photo Themes, which encouraged the chatter rather than image-sharing.
> 
> 
> 
> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post some of your favourite blurry images that you took.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But he asked for others to post pictures here that are not crystal clear and 'by the book', and I liked the pictures posted so far (mostly) absolute perfect focus shouldn't be the deciding factor if something is a good work of art or not.
Click to expand...

Could motion blur be said to transcend the dimension of time? I'd love images that capture that essence of a moment stolen and framed for all time.


----------



## table1349

Suitably blurry I might add.


----------



## manaheim

lol


----------



## Moly

I think the thing about sharpness with me is that the subject needs to be the thing most in focus. Whether that be pin sharp or just "meh" can be irrelevent. If the tip of a person's nose is in focus and the eyes out of focus then that is usually indicative of poor technique rather than intentional rebelliousness.


----------



## Tim Tucker

chuasam said:


> Reminds me of a time this photographer was complaining that one lens was inferior because it wasn't as sharp right in the corner of an image, to which I asked "what are you taking photos of? Charts?"



Ahh, but it is the nature of 35mm photography that images need large magnifications which do expose the weaknesses in lens design. If your living depends on you taking shots hand held at the limits of natural light then you do need the best kit available. The same with sports photography.

My point is that it is not conducive to creative thought. With sport you must have sharpness and action, capture the expressions etc, but it leads to all sports photographs really having the same form. All technology does is refine the solution, not force you to explore other ones. Try taking a medium format film camera to a sports event, it's limitations in producing a sharp image of a moving subject will force you to look for other types of shot, ones with a more static subject, to be more creative. It's not just about blurred or sharp.

With any lens you will not achieve the test scores in the real world. All subjects move, leaves rustle, water ripples, cheeks twitch. The nature of light itself alters the appearance of sharpness. It's easily demonstrated with two shots identical except for one having reduced local contrast, it will look softer in comparison and has nothing to do with absolute levels of sharpness.

As for intentional blur, what is intentional? I can easily show you a sharp image at 400% and it would look blurred, also a blurred image looks sharper the further away you stand from it. You could take it a step further and explore the effect of having different levels of apparent sharpness within one image, or even having a continuous level of the same sharpness across the entire image instead of thinking of images as just being either blurred or sharp. Sharpness is not an absolute quality of images, it's relative and apparent only.


----------



## chuasam

Look up David Burnett. He's a legend in the sports photography world. He shot the Olympics with a large format camera.


----------



## Overread

And we've reached the point of extreme non-arguments.



That is to say we are not arguing against the indiscriminate use of sharpness when it never been a problem nor a viewpoint raised in the thread thus far. Some of you do seem to be taking the view that any promotion of sharpness or comparison of optics in terms of absolute test-resolution is a bad thing. A crime committed against art which some how holds art back. 


In truth art has always been a case where established method pushes its advance in technical competence. This isn't taking anything away; its extending what art can do. Better tools do give better results. Sure you can argue that the composition and exposure might be the same; that some differences are hard to see at typical (but not absolute) display sizes/mediums. 


Heck I know people who are artists who use top end drawing tablet screens; who use top end paints and brushes and penciles because they work better. And similarly I know them to use (more in traditional materials) lesser quality items because of how they render or give an effect; or cost or appearance etc..





And in the end are we seeing test-charts in galleries? 
No (well barring the Tate where I'm sure there's at least one somewhere) 
We are seeing photography in all its forms from cutting sharp to silky smooth blur and all inbetween. The choice lies with the photographer. 


The teacher has only the duty to impart what they know; to challenge the boundaries of the student and to help them achieve the best potential they can by extending their horizons. A student who can produce sharp to soft shots by choice; not accident; is a student who can be an artist who can realise their own creative vision (which is rarely singular). And that is all most forums aim for; to ensure that those who are posting shots can achieve their potential.

And yes sometimes this means people learn that they can't get it perfectly sharp - go shoot some high magnification macro work and unless you're using an electron microscope you won't get 100% view sharp shots; but you can get some darn fine results.

Heck the guy I know who did those adverts for canon inkjets a while back - those with the sound making paint fly into the air in crazy patterns. He's done an extensive amount of testing of high magnification gear in various forms to find the sharpest result. Sure those shots were not making him the artist; but by doing them he now has the knowledge and resources to draw upon to make some shots others can only dream of.


----------



## Tim Tucker

chuasam said:


> Look up David Burnett. He's a legend in the sports photography world. He shot the Olympics with a large format camera.



Aye, Tim Hetherington's another. He took medium format film into war zones.



Overread said:


> Some of you do seem to be taking the view that any promotion of sharpness or comparison of optics in terms of absolute test-resolution is a bad thing. A crime committed against art which some how holds art back. ...snip
> 
> Better tools do give better results.



That's arguing across the point. It's not that sharp lenses are bad (but a market driven by absolute test figures rather than overall lens performance is bad). It's the reliance of technology to provide the solution that stops you observing the subject more closely. This is not something that an artist stops doing because he has the latest brush, because the brush does not paint the picture for him the way a camera takes the photograph for the photographer.

You (not you personally, the royal 'you' ) can buy the sharpest lens out there but it does not guarantee you will get the sharpest picture, not by a long way. So you rely on your technology, you shoot with perfectly calibrated AF but on a dull day. I didn't study any lens test charts, I studied the nature of light. I stuck my 60's Nikkor on the camera and simply waited for the sun to come out. I bet my shots look sharper than yours.

How many photographers out there who've ever really considered why it is that eyes need to look sharp in images, against how many who assess the performance of their lenses and AF by looking at how sharp they are? 

Eyes need to look sharp in images because they are sharp in real life. Against the soft skin they have a higher contrast and more importantly because of the film of moisture they have a much higher acutance. They have a natural appearance of greater sharpness than the softer skin against which they're contrasted. It's how horses can tell if you watching them from near 1/4 mile away.

The above paragraph alone will teach you more about sharpness in images than any lens test score. It's not that I'm against sharpness, far from it. It's just that lens test scores are not the place to look if you want to understand it.

Sharper lenses are not always better, and they do not always provide the sharpest results.


----------



## KC1

This is true, the exception is perhaps in insurance records, recon, documentary and forensic work, but as far as art goes, I agree.


----------



## Overread

I'm not actually quite sure what we are debating now. 

That sharpness isn't just the result of the lens is a given 
That sharpness is part in parcel the understanding of light; contrast etc.. is also a given

I think we've drifted form debating the merits of blur into a discussion on the properties of sharpness. Where we all seem to be agreeing with each other


----------



## chuasam

Overread said:


> I'm not actually quite sure what we are debating now.
> 
> That sharpness isn't just the result of the lens is a given
> That sharpness is part in parcel the understanding of light; contrast etc.. is also a given
> 
> I think we've drifted form debating the merits of blur into a discussion on the properties of sharpness. Where we all seem to be agreeing with each other


Very sneaky Tim. 
Yeah the original point is that many photographers seem to think that sharpness is the be all and end all in an image. That the quality of an image can be inferred by its sharpness.


----------



## KC1

chuasam said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not actually quite sure what we are debating now.
> 
> That sharpness isn't just the result of the lens is a given
> That sharpness is part in parcel the understanding of light; contrast etc.. is also a given
> 
> I think we've drifted form debating the merits of blur into a discussion on the properties of sharpness. Where we all seem to be agreeing with each other
> 
> 
> 
> Very sneaky Tim.
> Yeah the original point is that many photographers seem to think that sharpness is the be all and end all in an image. That the quality of an image can be inferred by its sharpness.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I have had fauxtographers say that an image of mine was not as sharp as an eye chart and therefore was not a good photo when the blurred areas were intentional for a particular effect and feel.
Some people don't see the difference between a camera as a recording device and a camera as an artists tool.


----------



## Tim Tucker

Overread said:


> I'm not actually quite sure what we are debating now.
> 
> That sharpness isn't just the result of the lens is a given
> That sharpness is part in parcel the understanding of light; contrast etc.. is also a given
> 
> I think we've drifted form debating the merits of blur into a discussion on the properties of sharpness. Where we all seem to be agreeing with each other



Absolutely. It's just that I see the tyranny of sharpness as when you mistakenly believe that it's the kit and the lens that provides the sharp image (it helps...). I also have a real problem when it comes to labelling an image "sharp" or "blurred". A lot of the time many photographers cite certain images as being sharp when in fact they aren't really sharp at all. They contain both relatively sharp and blurred, and it's the contrast between the two that leaves the impression of sharpness. The very same mechanism that makes many over-sharpen, because if you back off it looks softer in comparison. With the same effect if you sharpen everything in your image you produce a uniform norm and nothing really stands out as sharp. This is the true tyranny of sharpness. 

Here's an old school portrait on a modern camera. D600, ISO 3200 handheld at 1/160sec, 1966 Sonnar 105/2.5 manual focus at f2.8. Most of the image is soft and is what I would call an effective use of blur, not to make the image look soft but to make it look sharp. It's why I have a problem when asked to show my best blurred image, because I just don't see images in absolute terms such as sharp or blurred. Most successful images are a combination of both and not an absolute of either. If you see what I mean...


----------



## KC1

Women do not want a tack sharp portrait, EVER.

Revision in light of another woman's view:
I, as a woman, never want a tack sharp portrait of me, EVER.


----------



## manaheim

Um... that image is tack-sharp. Painfully so.

If that's your definition of "an effective use of blur", I don't have ANY idea what you're on about.

Are you referring to the out of focus elements beyond the plane of focus?


----------



## Tim Tucker

manaheim said:


> Um... that image is tack-sharp. Painfully so.
> 
> If that's your definition of "an effective use of blur", I don't have ANY idea what you're on about.
> 
> Are you referring to the out of focus elements beyond the plane of focus?



Actually most of the image is out of focus and blurred not sharp (I thought I was quite clear above ).

Also I bet that if I turned it on it's head so the lady was oof and the background was in focus you'd call it blurred, even though there'd be more of the image in focus than there is now.

I don't understand that concept, how just moving the focal plane changes the image from a blurred one to a sharp one, or at what point it suddenly changes. To me it's always a combination and the only thing that changes is how effective it looks.

Something else as well, if you were able to bring the whole image to the same level of sharpness (contrast/acutance) then it would actually look slightly softer (and quite a lot flatter). The reason eyes stand out on a face, because they naturally have more contrast/acutance than the soft skin.
So if you enhance the _difference_ a little you can make them look a little sharper (effective use of blur?), if you flatten the difference you make them look softer. Take a look at Watchfull's Dragan experiment and see for yourself:

Dragan


----------



## Overread

Most photographers consider a photo to be sharp when the points of key focus (or at least a primary point) is in focus and sharp. Regardless of what % of the photo is or isn't sharp/blurry its the point of interest and focus that we consider otherwise we'd get lost in a sea of % confusion that would make it very hard to converse. 

Similarly when people speak of blur in a photo they typically mean motion blur in at least one or more key areas of focus or the whole photo itself. 


There is  divide in how we speak about photos between sharpness and depth of field; even though both are directly related to the other.


----------



## clel miller

Boy, am I lost.
The picture of that woman.?
To Me...the only part that looks Blurry/Out Of Focus (I guess I do not know what that means) is the blue curtain that is well behind her.
To my eyes, everything else is sharp.....from the front of her (dark) sleeve, to the hair at the back of her head.


----------



## jake337




----------



## manaheim

So painful. 

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tim Tucker

Overread said:


> Most photographers consider a photo to be sharp when the points of key focus (or at least a primary point) is in focus and sharp. Regardless of what % of the photo is or isn't sharp/blurry its the point of interest and focus that we consider otherwise we'd get lost in a sea of % confusion that would make it very hard to converse.
> 
> Similarly when people speak of blur in a photo they typically mean motion blur in at least one or more key areas of focus or the whole photo itself.
> 
> 
> There is  divide in how we speak about photos between sharpness and depth of field; even though both are directly related to the other.



If you wish to be able to categorise one image that's half in and half out of focus as being sharp and another that's half in and half out of focus as _not_ being sharp then by all means create a rule about the exact definition of what constitutes a sharp image and what does not when both have equal amounts of focus and blur. To me the exercise is pointless.
Instead you could ask yourself why it is that one of the _half in..._ looks intrinsically sharp yet if you shift the focal plane the other looks intrinsically soft.




clel miller said:


> Boy, am I lost.
> The picture of that woman.?
> To Me...the only part that looks Blurry/Out Of Focus (I guess I do not know what that means) is the blue curtain that is well behind her.
> To my eyes, everything else is sharp.....from the front of her (dark) sleeve, to the hair at the back of her head.



Look again, closer. Really, and see how little is actually sharp. Even on this resize the tip of the nose, the cheeks and chin are soft. The hair only has a few strands that are truly sharp and only the bare minimum of the roll top jumper is actually in focus. As with Overhead, ask why you see this image as intrinsically sharp, but if I shifted the focus plane a little you'd see it as soft. Here's another that's really soft (push processed HP5). But see how the acutance of the glasses creates an illusion of apparent sharpness that can fool the eyes.







manaheim said:


> So painful.



If you're not interested then why respond? I find the subject fascinating and can do without your put downs. Thanks.



jake337 said:


>



Yea, the response of a closed mind. Thanks for the contribution.


----------



## jake337

Tim Tucker said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most photographers consider a photo to be sharp when the points of key focus (or at least a primary point) is in focus and sharp. Regardless of what % of the photo is or isn't sharp/blurry its the point of interest and focus that we consider otherwise we'd get lost in a sea of % confusion that would make it very hard to converse.
> 
> Similarly when people speak of blur in a photo they typically mean motion blur in at least one or more key areas of focus or the whole photo itself.
> 
> 
> There is  divide in how we speak about photos between sharpness and depth of field; even though both are directly related to the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you wish to be able to categorise one image that's half in and half out of focus as being sharp and another that's half in and half out of focus as _not_ being sharp then by all means create a rule about the exact definition of what constitutes a sharp image and what does not when both have equal amounts of focus and blur. To me the exercise is pointless.
> Instead you could ask yourself why it is that one of the _half in..._ looks intrinsically sharp yet if you shift the focal plane the other looks intrinsically soft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clel miller said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, am I lost.
> The picture of that woman.?
> To Me...the only part that looks Blurry/Out Of Focus (I guess I do not know what that means) is the blue curtain that is well behind her.
> To my eyes, everything else is sharp.....from the front of her (dark) sleeve, to the hair at the back of her head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look again, closer. Really, and see how little is actually sharp. Even on this resize the tip of the nose, the cheeks and chin are soft. The hair only has a few strands that are truly sharp and only the bare minimum of the roll top jumper is actually in focus. As with Overhead, ask why you see this image as intrinsically sharp, but if I shifted the focus plane a little you'd see it as soft. Here's another that's really soft (push processed HP5). But see how the acutance of the glasses creates an illusion of apparent sharpness that can fool the eyes.
> 
> View attachment 122025
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So painful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're not interested then why respond? I find the subject fascinating and can do without your put downs. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, the response of a closed mind. Thanks for the contribution.
Click to expand...



I thought it was funny.

Close mind?  I'm confused, a closed mind believes one concept to be correct and disregards all others.

I could care less.  A good image is a good image.


----------



## Tim Tucker

jake337 said:


> Close mind? I'm confused, a closed mind believes one concept to be correct and disregards all others.



Alternative ideas and discussion. I view digital images as just a series of dots on paper or screen. How well the illusion succeeds whether, real, unreal or fantasy is just about how the finished image relates to the way we see the real world with human eyes. This is the point of view I express, it's not unique. I just offer an alternative to think about, that's all.

Your milage may vary of course... 

_BTW, we keep horses, had a couple put down recently through sliced tendons (freak accidents that horses attract). Not a reproach, just a reminder that other's milage may vary even with jokes. No offence was taken. _


----------



## manaheim

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.

Some of the examples OP posted are what I expect for this discussion... images where pretty much the entire image is out of focus, or there is point-specific blur from motion.

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.

*(This is not intended to call you a non-competent photographer, btw... I think you have a terminology problem... my point is ONLY that experienced photographers are not going to call it blurry, because it is not.)
*
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.

And the next level of pain is that I'm betting good money that you're going to argue the definition of blurry, and use your definition to argue that a portion of your image is out of focus, so therefore the picture is blurry... which is, I'm sorry... wrong.

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.

Your image is not blurry.


----------



## KC1

manaheim said:


> So painful.





> If you're not interested then why respond? I find the subject fascinating and can do without your put downs. Thanks.


I think he meant that looking at the dead horse picture was painful, that the only thing that makes sense, why would he keep reading a thread he found painful?


----------



## chuasam

KC1 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> So painful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not interested then why respond? I find the subject fascinating and can do without your put downs. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he meant that looking at the dead horse picture was painful, that the only thing that makes sense, why would he keep reading a thread he found painful?
Click to expand...

*LOL* my thread wasn't about the joy of blurriness.
It was really about how sharpness seems to become the be all and end all of their images.
And that an image that isn't sharp  can't be any good.
I have no idea how out of focus and completely abstract blur came into the equation except in jest.

My posts are about pushing boundaries and not simply accepting so called conventional wisdom.
(refer to my signature)
It is about pushing the envelope and finding new things as a photographer.
There are many here who are happy in their complacency. They are unwilling to continue to grow and experiment with various ideas.
It is their loss.


----------



## chuasam

manaheim said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is getting a little ridiculous. I would suggest everyone agree to go enjoy whatever method they like with their cameras.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're fine with not pushing boundaries and working to improve - sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the same thing I said in the other thread by you.  NICE STRAW MAN ARGUMENT.
> 
> I'm perfectly capable of growing my skills without necessarily acquiescing to your particular perspective on whether or not blurry photos are good.
> 
> Again... this thread... just like the other one... you're being edgy for the sake of being edgy and playing the cute game where anyone who disagrees with you is clearly an inferior photographer or somehow "stuck in their ways".
> 
> If you're for real... and I doubt you are... then you're an example of why we have art exhibits that consist of a white canvas on a white wall.
> 
> If you're not for real, then you're really just a variant of an internet troll.
> 
> Either way, and as I said on your other thread... there have been PLENTY here that have come before you playing this game, and there will be plenty to follow.
> 
> Interestingly, in your attempts to be unique and edgy, you've pretty much just established yourself as just like all the rest.
> 
> Congratulations.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about blurry mistakes, I'm talking about the tyranny of sharp images. I'm talking about not accepting so called conventional ideas and finding your own path. I'm talking about photographers who have incorporated motion blur and even sometimes unsharp images to convey an idea.
You seemed to be bored by the topic and yet you keep returning to add jabs that bring nothing to the topic at hand.
In that context, maybe the troll on this thread is you.
Think about that.


----------



## manaheim

You really are my hero.
I'm going to unsubscribe from this thread now so I can stop being reminded of it.
Later.


----------



## limr

Yeah, so, uh, how about another picture, eh? And hey, here's a crazy idea - maybe some other people can post some of theirs, too!  

Intentional blur: 



Day 213 - A brief flirtation by limrodrigues, on Flickr


----------



## unpopular

chuasam said:


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



Except a soft image that lacks concept. Reason #324 to dislike Adams, his sweeping use of catchy superlatives.

Sharpness is a tool. It can convey intimacy, movement, and dream.

But using softness where sharpness should be (as in the OPs example) does nothing. And proclaiming it as intentional likewise means nothing - it's still a mistake, just one made consciously.


----------



## Vtec44

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.


----------



## limr

unpopular said:


> Except a soft image that lacks concept. Reason #324 to dislike Adams, his sweeping use of catchy superlatives.
> 
> Sharpness is a tool. It can convey intimacy, movement, and dream.
> 
> *But using softness where sharpness should be (as in the OPs example) does nothing. And proclaiming it as intentional likewise means nothing - it's still a mistake, just one made consciously.*



And who's to say where sharpness "should be"?


----------



## unpopular

You have to be conveying *something* with softness is my point. Nobody has specific "say", but if the softness is apparent and does not contribute, then its no better than an instagram filter thrown haphazradly onto everything in order to make it look "more better".


----------



## unpopular

I'm all for softness. Don't get me wrong.

But this sort of attitude that making everything soft has merit is just foolish - all because something Adams said.


----------



## chuasam

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.
The tyranny of sharpness would drive a photography risk failing to capture a meaningful image rather than capture an image that's not sharp.
I would rather see people push themselves to their limits and fail rather than stay safe and boring.



shot wide open at f/1.4
and on hindsight I fixed the chromatic aberration.
one can of worms per thread


----------



## JaneJohnson

chuasam said:


> 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.
> The tyranny of sharpness would drive a photography risk failing to capture a meaningful image rather than capture an image that's not sharp.
> I would rather see people push themselves to their limits and fail rather than stay safe and boring.
> View attachment 122042
> shot wide open at f/1.4
> and on hindsight I fixed the chromatic aberration.
> one can of worms per thread



I had a really long discussion regarding "being safe" and I just wanted to give you a   for this post and photo as an example, like you've read my mind!


----------



## Tim Tucker

manaheim said:


> 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:



manaheim said:


> 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.





manaheim said:


> 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 )



manaheim said:


> 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. 



manaheim said:


> 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_:



 

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.


----------



## Overread

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. The edited version you have posted looks soft - no ifs nor buts its soft. Yes relatively speaking it appears normal in that the eyes are more in focus than the surroundings; but its still soft - if indeed blurry. 

There are vast reductions in the contrast differences; details lost and missing; I would say its soft at best and blurry at worst. Were someone to post that straight out of camera I'd tell them to go back and try again with a faster shutter speed to avoid the softness.


----------



## Vtec44

Tim Tucker said:


> 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.


----------



## chuasam

Vtec44 said:


> Tim Tucker said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## chuasam

JaneJohnson said:


> I had a really long discussion regarding "being safe" and I just wanted to give you a   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


----------



## Tim Tucker

Overread said:


> 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.


----------



## manaheim

Tim Tucker said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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:
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 )
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your image is not blurry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## manaheim

Vtec44 said:


> 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.


----------



## table1349

I believe perfection has been achieved.  Wabi-Sabi-Wasabi-with noise.


----------



## unpopular

chuasam said:


> 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_


----------



## sleist

unpopular said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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_
Click to expand...


So, "Do what works."

Seems reasonable.

Which means no one will do it.


----------



## unpopular

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.


----------



## sleist

_


unpopular said:



			Just do things intentionally and with purpose.

That's all.

Click to expand...


This.
_


----------



## manaheim

unpopular said:


> 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.


----------



## KC1

manaheim said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




unpopular said:


> 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.


----------



## manaheim

KC1 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


So how do you justify your comment in this post, then?


----------



## unpopular

KC1 said:


> 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.


----------



## KC1

manaheim said:


> So how do you justify your comment in this post, then?


Which of my posts do you not understand?
I'm happy to explain.


----------



## KC1

unpopular said:


> KC1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

All you can say with authority is what you personally like or don't like, not what makes a good photograph, unless you add 'to me' on the end of that statement.


----------



## manaheim

I think this has run its course.


----------

