# Sharpness is overrated



## chuasam (Mar 18, 2012)

Post a great unsharp image. That being said, the given image has to have artistic merit and is not merely unsharp for the sake of being unsharp.





Also, put a link to your favourite image (or two) that is unsharp (that is taken by someone else).

Lartigue




Ellen von Unwerth


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Mar 18, 2012)

Be careful! I went down this road once before.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/265881-sharpness-overrated.html


----------



## DorkSterr (Mar 18, 2012)

No, it's not.


----------



## Damndirtyape (Mar 18, 2012)

Unsharp images are scary!


----------



## chuasam (Mar 30, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Be careful! I went down this road once before.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum/265881-sharpness-overrated.html


Yeah but that Thread got closed down before I got here.
Sharpness is not the be all and end all of photography. It is just a trait...not a goal.


----------



## slackercruster (Mar 30, 2012)

Talking about movement or diffusion?

I got some movement photos, but they are not handy. They are negs that need to be scanned.

So let me submit some 'cheezy' diffusion samples. 

Taken with Pentax D2000 with REAL, not fake, single element 100mm f5.6 diffusion lens. 




































This one was with Pentax K1000 with Fujicolor and scanned the photo. 







...personally, I like any type of photo that can speak to me - whether muted, grainiy, sharp, foggy, whatever.


----------



## Josh220 (Mar 30, 2012)

I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 30, 2012)

DorkSterr said:


> No, it's not.



Booooo!


----------



## ADavis85 (Apr 3, 2012)

Look Ma'! No hands! by ACDavis85, on Flickr


----------



## bhop (Apr 3, 2012)

Prowlers by bhop, on Flickr


----------



## slackercruster (Apr 3, 2012)

NICE!!bhop


----------



## slackercruster (Apr 3, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.




I used to think so, but get some of the NG coffe table books. Loaded with fuzzy, grainy, blurred, muted images and they look great!


----------



## bhop (Apr 3, 2012)

Forgot to add my link.. check out just about any of Daido Moriyama's stuff..

Daido Moriyama official web site|DaidoMoriyamaPhotoFoundation


----------



## chuasam (Apr 4, 2012)

Josh220 said:


> I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.


 and there is a whole lot more to photography than landscape stuff and National Geographic stuff.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 4, 2012)

IMO, there is no specific issue that is so overwhelmingly important that it must be included - unless it interferes with the enjoyment of the image.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 4, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is a considerable difference between an "unsharp" photo and something that is meant to have blur or softness. Most subjects and images absolutely require sharpness. Ever see a professional landscape photographer shoot hand-held? How about a wildlife photographer for National Geographic who missed the focus on the eyes? Nope, because their stuff would not sell.
> ...



I could have just as easily created a comparison regarding any other field of photography, but I assumed our esteemed forum members were competent enough to do that for themselves. I obviously was not limiting it to a mere two categories. But alas, I forget this is the internet, where people want their hands held.


----------



## Kbarredo (Apr 11, 2012)

Why dont you just instagram it. That will get take the focus off the blurriness of your pics.


----------



## ericz83 (Apr 11, 2012)

bhop said:


> Prowlers by bhop, on Flickr




This is awesome.  The 'unsharpness' totally works in this scene - my drunk walk home.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Apr 12, 2012)

Kbarredo said:


> Why dont you just instagram it. That will get take the focus off the blurriness of your pics.



Angsty Much?   :lmao:


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 12, 2012)

There are lots of situations when movement works with images, it doesn't necessarly mean they are unsharp.  There are times when an image is just a little bit out of focus and it's useless, all depends on the image and the style.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 12, 2012)

chuasam said:


> Post a great unsharp image. That being said, the given image has to have artistic merit and is not merely unsharp for the sake of being unsharp.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can't compare these three images, the last two are shot during a different era of photography, there are elements in both these images that are sharp. The first image doesn't work, it simply looks like an out of focus photo.


----------

