# Sharpness is Overrated!



## Bitter Jeweler

Pictorial Photography in America 1920

Pictorial Photography in America 1921

Pictorial Photography in America 1922

Well, is it?

Have we become so technology crazed, and lust so much for perfection, that we forget the beauty that came before us, with much less? I do realize this was all cutting edge at the time. But I think when we talk about image quality, we are always going towards perfection, rather than discussing image qualities which could be quite soft but still be an exceptional image.

In these books, there are ads for lenses, most of which are selling their softness, or quality of diffusion. There are a few that advertise sharpness, though. 

In these books, there're many, many, amazing, outstanding images. Look how soft they are. I am really intrigued by this history. Would any one, or all of these images be better if they were sharp as today's standards? There's only a few that in would say yes to.

Derrel, how would one go about duplicating this sort of softness using todays technology? 
Could something be done to a screw on filter to mimic this style with current lens selection?
Could something be done to the lens element, creating dedicated soft lenses?
Is it more than just the lens, and includes paper choices, film choices, etc?


----------



## Kerbouchard

No, it's not.


----------



## blackrose89

You've said this before and I find it encouraging,And I apologize if I missed the point in the link in my last thread, I'm unable to click the link at the moment (device I'mUsing denies pop ups)  so Now I know the point you were trying to make. I quite enjoy the composition in a lot of my photos, but the reason I said shooting with a faulty camera that can't focus seems pointless since it seems a photo can't be good unless it's sharp. I still believe I have good photos despite not being the sharpest (don't get me wrong they're not fuzzy lol) but I do believe lack of sharpness is a technical fault.


----------



## Kerbouchard

blackrose89 said:


> So is it possible I still have good photos despite the lack of sharpness?



It would very much depend on the photo.  Of a foggy marsh, sharpness is not so much a concern as the atmosphere and feel of the shot.  As a matter of fact, sharpness could detract from such an image.  Most any other type of shot, sharpness matters.


----------



## Vtec44

IMHO, art is subjective and that was something acceptable for that time period.  However, it is a piece of history that can never be truly recreated.  You can try to reproduce the style but it is nothing more than a reproduction without a real story attached.  It is no longer one of a kind, a true moment in history.


----------



## Derrel

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Pictorial Photography in America 1920
> 
> Pictorial Photography in America 1921
> 
> Pictorial Photography in America 1922
> 
> Well, is it?
> 
> Have we become so technology crazed, and lust so much for perfection, that we forget the beauty that came before us, with much less? I do realize this was all cutting edge at the time. But I think when we talk about image quality, we are always going towards perfection, rather than discussing image qualities which could be quite soft but still be an exceptional image.
> 
> In these books, there are ads for lenses, most of which are selling their softness, or quality of diffusion. There are a few that advertise sharpness, though.
> 
> In these books, there're many, many, amazing, outstanding images. Look how soft they are. I am really intrigued by this history. Would any one, or all of these images be better if they were sharp as today's standards? There's only a few that in would say yes to.
> 
> Derrel, how would one go about duplicating this sort of softness using todays technology?
> Could something be done to a screw on filter to mimic this style with current lens selection?
> Could something be done to the lens element, creating dedicated soft lenses?
> Is it more than just the lens, and includes paper choices, film choices, etc?



There were some pretty clever optical designs in terms of lenses that produced wonderfully soft focus, or ghosty, flare-prone images. The famous Rodenstock Imagon lens used a diaphragm mechanism that had a BUNCH of small holes, which were selectable by the photographer, based upon the softness of the image. Here's a modern video showing an Imagon 200mm lens, used on a GH1 digital camera. 




Screw-on filters work pretty well to create dreamy images. I have a collection of various softening and diffusing filters. Window screening material works wonderfully well with longer focal length lenses...in the early 1980's, I did a series of images which were shot through the Visqueen (storm windows) of the house where my father and I lived. That gave a very soft, impressionistic quality to the images. Plain UV or clear filters, sprayed with hairspray, clear lacquer, or smeared with Vaseline petroleum jelly--all three of those methods are pretty well-known. "Hairspray filters" give one type of effect. "Black netting diffusers" give another type of effect, a lot like window screen. Using two, or even three cross-star filters can work also. Fog filters work pretty well. Hell, for that matter, shooting in REAL FOG is a fun way to get pictorial-type images without any special techniques!!! (real foggy conditions--imagine that!!)

There ARE dedicated soft focus lenses. Nikon's 105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2 AF-D series lenses have Defocus Control, and allow you to defocus the image and create a misty, soft look that is very repeatable. THe effect looks a lot like a good-quality Zeiss Softon filter. Canon makes a very affordable, 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens that has a sharp setting, and then two separate settings for softer, and then really soft-focus images. Minolta used to make a very impressive soft focus lens with some radical lens design that created impeccably smooth bokeh. The Lensbaby line is also
a line of soft focus + tilt lenses...I own some Lensbaby stuff...I actually prefer their ORIGINAL, with the bad single-element design, with loads of CA, over the 2.0 model that has a multi-element lens and which is much sharper.

The old-time pictorialists had some pretty involved print-making and negative-handling methods. Retouching on the negatives was common, as were operations like reducing and intensifying, hand-accelerated development, fogging of paper, pre-fogging of sheets of film, "knocking" the camera once or twice during longer exposures, shooting toward bright lights, and of course, finding lenses that delivered the Kind of images that were appropriate to the artistic intent. Pictorialism was big wayyyy before lens coating was invented, so multi-element lenses and "fast" lenses were much more prone to light loss due to internal reflection than later, coated lenses would be. The lenses of that time were, for the most part, more prone to flare and veiling (overall) glare at their wider aperture settings, so if a person shot with the lens at a weaker-performing aperture, its imaging characteristics would reflect that.

It is a mistake to think that ALL lenses of that era were junky: I saw an old folding Kodak camera's lens, made circa 1915, whose lens had been removed from the camera, and rigged up to shoot on a Sony d-slr. The image quality of the lens was pretty damned good, by modern standards. But there were also quite a few lenses that were designed to produce softer, less-aggressive contrast and less-aggressive sharpness, and those lenses were highly sought-after by people who wanted to create the more-dreamy "pictorialist" type images.

*Sharpness IS OVERRATED in my opinion. *Some of the greatest photographs ever made have some unsharpness due to subject blur, or camera shake, or bad focus, etc. Millions of wonderful snapshots and family pictures have flaws in them. Some great sports, news, and action shots are "flawed". If a photo lacks that certain something, it does not matter how sharp it is, it's not much of a photo. If a photo happens to HAVE that certain something, then it's a good photo. Maybe even a great photo. People who think that "only" sharp, clear, frozen images are valid are usually uneducated in the fine arts and  are visually quite, how can I say this....they're visually quite plebian...  They are the kind of people who rejected impressionist painting because, "it's all blurry and I can't tell what it's supposed to be about."


----------



## Kerbouchard

Ellsworth Toohey is taking over our society.

*No, sharpness is not overrated*.  Being able to achieve a sharp photo of a subject is an *essential* skill a photographer must have.  Knowing when not to do that is a nuance very few will ever achieve, but that is not to say that skill is not worthwhile. But to chase after certain 'iconic' photos that are 'great' and 'soft' doesn't mean newer photos can be 'iconic', 'great' and 'soft'.  Those were the best possible of the day...it wasn't a matter of artistic interpretation.  They just couldn't do any better.

*Those are recorded moments of history that are made great solely due to proximity.

*It's where your expression 'f/8 and be there' comes from.  If you take a photo of a great moment, you have suceeded...

Well, there is a difference between a great shot and a photo of a great moment.

FWIW, Iconic and Masterpiece are what happen when a great shot occurs during a great moment...


----------



## unpopular

It should be pointed out that a good number of those images which Bitter linked us to are prob. gum prints, and a big part of gum prints is in the surface quality.

I've made enough gum prints to tell you, they are REALLY effin' hard to master.

-----

I am not sure how I feel about this sharpness thing. I spent an entire day shooting with a lens that is really fickle only to come home with a bunch of blurry pictures - and not at all appealing. This guy uses the same lens and gets lovely soft focus effects, whereas I get a giant mess. I think softness works, but it's extremely hard to control and takes a level of letting go:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raymonddukes/6393577023/in/photostream/

(^^not me)


----------



## Derrel

Vtec44 said:


> IMHO, art is subjective and that was something acceptable for that time period.  However, it is a piece of history that can never be truly recreated.  You can try to reproduce the style but it is nothing more than a reproduction without a real story attached.  It is no longer one of a kind, a true moment in history.


I agree that it is not a good idea to slavishly try and re-create prior artistic movements; while that's an interesting exercise, it does not advance the state of art, and is merely copy-catting. BUT, and this is the interesting thing, the idea, the value of, and the appreciation for LESS-THAN-MAXIMUM sharpness in photography is a concept that has NEVER, EVER totally died out. In fact, I would say that right now, 2011, is the era of the absolute PEAK of modern pictorialism. What you say? Well...head over to the App Store and check out *Hipstamatic*...

We have had the Diana plastic-lens 120 rollfilm camera in the 1970's...one of my all-time favorite pictorialist-influenced fine art photographers, Sheila Metzner, whose early 1970's work really reminds me of the pictorialist ethos, and whose 2000 New York portfolio has a very,very old-time feel to it.Holden Luntz Gallery The Holga craze was big for a while. "Lomography" ought to ring a bell for some people. In the 1960's Ernst Haas did a lot of very slow speed, hand-held work, which is in many ways, a rather pictorial and impressionistic way of rendering the world. A guy, using some of the world's finest Leicaflex lenses...and yet, shooting lots of images at 1/2 second hand-held, or slower...interesting, no? I'll repeat it again: people who cannot appreciate any image that is deliberately made LESS-THAN-MAXIMALLY-SHARP, have lowbrow, plebian taste. They also probably cannot appreciate classical music, jazz, fine wine, gourmet cooking, or cheese that comes in wax, and not individually wrapped in single-slice servings...those who are uneducated in the fine arts typically have a pretty narrow point of view of what is required of "photography". If they do not like it, it is "crap".

But today, we have the "Hipstamatic" type of software that makes images LESS-sharp, and less-accurate in color, and mottled and messed up, and *LESS-THAN-MAXIMALLY-SHARP. I am positive that there are many thousands more copies of Hipstamatic in use than there ever were copies of the Imagon lens made.*


----------



## c.cloudwalker

Bitter Jeweler said:


> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28015/28015-pdf.pdfI do realize this was all cutting edge at the time.



and probably as sharp as they could get. You mentioned their advertising the softness, don't you think that's just good marketing? If you can't get a super sharp lens, advertise the beautiful softness. Companies don't usually advertise the negative, they'll find a positive spin to put on it.

The more interesting question, imho, is whether or not the photogs of that time would have jumped at the chance of using our super sharp lenses of today... We will never know. One thing I know however is that some photogs have built their career on a certain softness/dreaminess/haziness in their images, such as this guy:
http://www.google.fr/search?q=david....,cf.osb&fp=7dd130d999135b65&biw=1108&bih=790


That said, I agree that we are overly concerned with sharpness. A boring yet super sharp image is still boring. A beautiful image that is not so sharp is still a beautiful image.


----------



## BastiaanImages

I think there is just a gap between sharp and intentionally unsharp that should be avoided (although there are always exceptions to the rule). A picture that was meant to be sharp by the photographer but turns out with a bit of blur won't work. A picture that was set up to have some unsharpness can work out very well because the photographer took it into consideration before taking the picture.

Not sure I'm making any sense


----------



## GeorgieGirl

BastiaanImages said:


> I think there is just a gap between sharp and intentionally unsharp that should be avoided (although there are always exceptions to the rule). A picture that was meant to be sharp by the photographer but turns out with a bit of blur won't work. A picture that was set up to have some unsharpness can work out very well because the photographer took it into consideration before taking the picture.
> 
> Not sure I'm making any sense



I follow this. 

I looked at some of the photos in the 1922 link. Those photos have a lot of grain.


----------



## Buckster

The idea that they couldn't achieve sharpness in the 1920's so they made the best of it seems off-base to me.  There are plenty of photos from that era and even before that are sharp.  Even Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre in 1838 or 1839 looks pretty sharp to me (other than the people moving in it).  Lots of portraits of the day are sharp.  We have fairly sharp photos of Lincoln from the 1860's.

No, I'm not buying the idea that they couldn't make a sharp photo.  Photographers then made artistic and compositional choices, just as we do today.


----------



## pgriz

Many, if not most of the images we get to see these days are on the internet, and the resolution of those is limited by the size/resolution of the LCD screen.  So 18+ megapickels get smooshed down to at best a few megs, much of the time.  Any fine detail inherent in the original resolution gets lost.  Sure, some continue to print and use the resolution inherent in those images, but very few, I'd suspect.  Artistically, sharpness is another attribute of images that can inform and convey information.  I would agree with BJ that in and of itself, sharpness IS overrated.  But then, we tend to worship the techical achievements over esthetic ones.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Second shooter I hired Haley Poulos loves to shoot blurry photos on purpose.  

http://cakesniffer.org/hpo/201105/29/20110529026b.jpg


----------



## DiskoJoe

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Pictorial Photography in America 1920
> 
> Pictorial Photography in America 1921
> 
> Pictorial Photography in America 1922
> 
> Well, is it?
> 
> Have we become so technology crazed, and lust so much for perfection, that we forget the beauty that came before us, with much less? I do realize this was all cutting edge at the time. But I think when we talk about image quality, we are always going towards perfection, rather than discussing image qualities which could be quite soft but still be an exceptional image.
> 
> In these books, there are ads for lenses, most of which are selling their softness, or quality of diffusion. There are a few that advertise sharpness, though.
> 
> In these books, there're many, many, amazing, outstanding images. Look how soft they are. I am really intrigued by this history. Would any one, or all of these images be better if they were sharp as today's standards? There's only a few that in would say yes to.
> 
> Derrel, how would one go about duplicating this sort of softness using todays technology?
> Could something be done to a screw on filter to mimic this style with current lens selection?
> Could something be done to the lens element, creating dedicated soft lenses?
> Is it more than just the lens, and includes paper choices, film choices, etc?



Just focus manually. I get this look all the time when i dont want it.


----------



## DiskoJoe

Schwettylens said:


> Second shooter I hired Haley Poulos loves to shoot blurry photos on purpose.
> 
> http://cakesniffer.org/hpo/201105/29/20110529026b.jpg



And we have a winner!!!!


----------



## Destin

There is absolutely more to a photo than sharpness, or any technical matter for that fact. I'm not saying I would purposely try to create a soft photo, but go to your local Barnes and noble and pick up a copy of nat geos "best photos" book. I was looking through it last time I was there and the one thing that caught my eye was how ridiculously soft some of the candid shots of people were. To the point it would be a right click delete for me. However they were still insanely impacting images, that had more raw emotion, and character than my best ten shots combined. 

My conclusion was: sharpness isn't everything. A photo is mean to cause a reaction in its viewer. The only people noticing that the images aren't totally sharp are other photographers. The general non photog public just wants to see the emotion, feel, and character of the scene. Hell it could be over or underexposed by a stop and theyre not gonna care. The impact of a good photo surpasses technical matters. Period.


----------



## ann

John Galt is sitting in my bookshelf.


----------



## Snakeguy101

This is one of my favorite photographs. Nothing about it is sharp: Israel Picture
Also this little article is a good read about creatively using softness to get an image to work: Jim Richardson on Portrait Photography and Exposure Tips -- National Geographic


----------



## Robin Usagani

I sometimes get blurry photos on purpose


----------



## Proteus617

Kerbouchard said:


> Ellsworth Toohey is taking over our society.
> 
> *No, sharpness is not overrated*.  Being able to achieve a sharp photo of a subject is an *essential* skill a photographer must have.  Knowing when not to do that is a nuance very few will ever achieve, but that is not to say that skill is not worthwhile. But to chase after certain 'iconic' photos that are 'great' and 'soft' doesn't mean newer photos can be 'iconic', 'great' and 'soft'.  Those were the best possible of the day...it wasn't a matter of artistic interpretation.  They just couldn't do any better.



Interesting perspective!  Please review Steichen's Moonrise or Flatiron Building.  Better yet, see some of Steichen's work in person.  Then come back here and elaborate on your thesis regarding Steichens lacking of an essential skill and his images being due to the limitations of technology.


----------



## Ysarex

BastiaanImages said:


> I think there is just a gap between sharp and intentionally unsharp that should be avoided (although there are always exceptions to the rule). A picture that was meant to be sharp by the photographer but turns out with a bit of blur won't work. A picture that was set up to have some unsharpness can work out very well because the photographer took it into consideration before taking the picture.
> 
> Not sure I'm making any sense




Yep -- that's it. What I tell my students is this: There's plenty of room for both sharp and soft photos. The key is the photographer's intent. What we want to avoid are mistakes. And if you do have a happy accident, swear on your grandmother's grave you were going for that effect.

Joe


----------



## j-digg

Over rated or not, I sure am appreciative of the sharpness I can achieve with my better lenses


----------



## belial

Kerbouchard said:
			
		

> You are using ridiculous cell phone apps that make tons of money from silly users as an example of why Sharpness is overrated?  Honestly, I expected more from you, Derrel.
> 
> Pretty sad, indeed, Mr. Toohey.
> 
> After all, anybody can just take a photo with a cell phone.  Who is to say yours are better than theirs.  Certainly not you.  You just don't understand it's artistic integrity, it's nuances, it's meaning.
> 
> You and your perfectly shot photos, who needs you?
> 
> I give up...Oh, well, Who is John Galt?



I know five pros that love to use that "ridiculous" cellphone app


----------



## o hey tyler

In this thread: Opinion being stated as facts... Again.


----------



## zcar21

I agree with Kerbouchard. Sharpness is not overrated. The problem I see is that a soft picture come out unintentionally and the error goes unnoticed. Then, people want to go buy a "sharper" lens.


----------



## nickzou

Schwettylens said:


> I sometimes get blurry photos on purpose



HA! That's genius.


----------



## KenC

o hey tyler said:


> In this thread: Opinion being stated as facts... Again.



No, that could never happen on here, never!


----------



## GeorgieGirl

belial said:
			
		

> I know five pros that love to use that "ridiculous" cellphone app



Annie Liebowitz recently commented on how fantastic the iPhone camera is.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

KenC said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this thread: Opinion being stated as facts... Again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that could never happen on here, never!
Click to expand...


Nor  anywhere on the internetz


----------



## belial

Technical value has never been important in artwork. Either the artwork says something or it doesn't.


----------



## Starskream666

I've said this from the beginning, and got loads of **** for it.


----------



## Kerbouchard

belial said:


> Technical value has never been important in artwork. Either the artwork says something or it doesn't.



Not true.  It's actually a matter of whether the artist or his marketing director can convince people that if they don't understand it they aren't worthy.  

Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.


----------



## tirediron

Kerbouchard said:


> Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.


And you are qualified to make that blanket statement because....


----------



## blackrose89

Kerbouchard said:


> belial said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technical value has never been important in artwork. Either the artwork says something or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.  It's actually a matter of whether the artist or his marketing director can convince people that if they don't understand it they aren't worthy.  Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.
Click to expand...

 Agreed. Also agrees professionals at times use iphones. Part of the new avengers movie was filmed using an iPhone and iPhone apps. Tells you something about the general quality.


----------



## mishele

Is sharpness overrated? I guess it depends on the type of photographer you are.......

The photographer that is an artist first is going to say "sharpness is overrated". Artists tend to try to push the limits of any medium they are using to create their art. They think outside the box and try to go against the grain. No true artist just wants to copy something they see. They want to create.


If you are a photographer first, you prolly will say that sharpness is the end goal.  You are prolly striving for technical perfection. =)

Nothing wrong w/ either just a different mindset. 

Great post, BJ!!


----------



## tirediron

Kerbouchard said:


> No, sharpness is not overrated.


In your opinion.



Kerbouchard said:


> Being able to achieve a sharp photo of a subject is an essential skill a photographer must have.


I'll buy that.



Kerbouchard said:


> ...doesn't mean newer photos can be 'iconic', 'great' and 'soft'.


Why not?



Kerbouchard said:


> Those were the best possible of the day...it wasn't a matter of artistic interpretation. They just couldn't do any better.


BULL$***!!!!  That is rubbish and you know it.  Take two minutes and do a Google image search on "Civil War".  The first two pages of results come up with dozens of images that are well more than "acceptably" sharp, especially when you allow for their age.



Kerbouchard said:


> It's where your expression 'f/8 and be there' comes from.


I believe that "F8 and be there" referred to the fact that on the Speed and Crown Graphics, f8 gave you a DoF that generally sufficient  for most images, ensuring that the photographer could focus his attention on the events.



Kerbouchard said:


> If you take a photo of a great moment, you have suceeded...


Yep!

Something that I think has been overlooked here is the type of softness.  Is it soft because the photographer failed to use the necessary DoF?  Is it soft because his/her shutter-speed was too low and shake was apparent?  Or, is it soft because that was the best the equipment could deliver?  OR, was it deliberately softened because the artist wanted that effect.  Softness due to error is not desirable under any circumstance IMO, softness due to equipment limitation is undesirable, but unavoidable, and softness due to photographer preference is purely subjective.  The problem with looking at many older, soft images, is that it's often difficult to tell why they were soft.  Was it because the exposure was so long that slight vibrations caused camera shake?  Was it that the photographer was poor and the best lens he could afford was cheap, or that his camera didn't focus well?  OR, was it because he truly desired that effect...


----------



## blackrose89

tirediron said:


> Something that I think has been overlooked here is the type of softness.  Is it soft because the photographer failed to use the necessary DoF?  Is it soft because his/her shutter-speed was too low and shake was apparent?  Or, is it soft because that was the best the equipment could deliver?  OR, was it deliberately softened because the artist wanted that effect.  Softness due to error is not desirable under any circumstance IMO, softness due to equipment limitation is undesirable, but unavoidable, and softness due to photographer preference is purely subjective.  The problem with looking at many older, soft images, is that it's often difficult to tell why they were soft.  Was it because the exposure was so long that slight vibrations caused camera shake?  Was it that the photographer was poor and the best lens he could afford was cheap, or that his camera didn't focus well?  OR, was it because he truly desired that effect...


 Agreed!

I think a bigger problem is a lot of people classify a "soft" focus for a "missed" focus. I posted up this photo of this bee not too long ago, and I asked if someone could help me make the "missed" focus look better. And people on HERE corrected me and pointed out to me that I nailed the focus, but since I am using an old compact, I am limited to how the camera focuses. It's not that I missed the focus, my camera focuses very softly. When I use other cameras, the focus is much stronger. But that all changes soon THANK GOD!


----------



## mishele

Why does it matter "why" they are soft? People analyze things too much, just look and enjoy.


----------



## tirediron

mishele said:


> Why does it matter "why" they are soft? People analyze things too much, just look and enjoy.


I think it matters in the context of Bitter's original question.  Can you really include user-error in a question like that?  Granted, if it's a nice image, who cares, how or why, but purely based on the question he asked, I think it's relevant.


----------



## Derrel

tirediron said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are qualified to make that blanket statement because....
Click to expand...


...because to him "art" is paint-by-number scenes, of cliched things like seascapes, New England fall color, and bowls of fruit; in other words, his narrow definition of "art" is easily-accessible material that conforms to his narrow definition and limited understanding of "art". I am basing this upon his adamant statements early on in the discussion that the MOST-important thing in good photography is technical perfection and "sharpness". Kerbouchard's insistence that only , "Very rarely is 'art' actually done well," is really in itself the kind of common-man, plebian understanding of the fine arts that exists in much of the USA. People like him hate opera, hate hip-hop music, hate rap music, dislike free-form poetry, absolutely loathe avante-garde "anything", and watch highbrow TV shows like Jersey Shore, Dancing With The Stars, and other dreck. Museums? Those are for squares! Art galleries? Only for Hipster democrats and liberals. BFA and MFA degrees in the fine arts? Only for commie pinko lib-tards. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in Texas. And truth be known, across much of the USA.

Yeah, we get it Kerby...in your world, and in Texas, "art" means easily-accessible, facile works. Stuff done from roughly 1700 to 1865. That to you is the "well-done art". If you do not have the education, or the artistic sensibility, or the critical thinking ability to step outside your narrow concept of what art "is", then you simply say it's all crap. You are one of a hundred million uneducated Amuuuuricans, all dissing "art" that they cannot understand. You mock what you do not understand. You mock that which you have not studied. You mock the cultures of countries you're not from. You mock the music of people who are different  from you. "We get it, Kerby".

Buy some books about art. Then read them. And then after reading them, then STUDY them. Diligently. Go to some museums. And then, just maybe, and the maybe is strong, you'll have the beginning of an inkling of a clue about what "art" is, and what it does, and just maybe, you'll revise your blanket statement. (Oh, who the heck am I kidding...go back to eating Doritos while watching your Jersey Shore episodes on Hulu, while you pass your life waiting for the next Dallas Cowboy's loss this weekend.)


----------



## Dao

For some reasons, I thought Overread changed his handle to Sharpness.   Oh well ...


----------



## Kerbouchard

Derrel said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very rarely is 'art' actually done well.
> 
> 
> 
> And you are qualified to make that blanket statement because....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...because to him "art" is paint-by-number scenes, of cliched things like seascapes, New England fall color, and bowls of fruit; in other words, his narrow definition of "art" is easily-accessible material that conforms to his narrow definition and limited understanding of "art". I am basing this upon his adamant statements early on in the discussion that the MOST-important thing in good photography is technical perfection and "sharpness". Kerbouchard's insistence that only , "Very rarely is 'art' actually done well," is really in itself the kind of common-man, plebian understanding of the fine arts that exists in much of the USA. People like him hate opera, hate hip-hop music, hate rap music, dislike free-form poetry, absolutely loathe avante-garde "anything", and watch highbrow TV shows like Jersey Shore, Dancing With The Stars, and other dreck. Museums? Those are for squares! Art galleries? Only for Hipster democrats and liberals. BFA and MFA degrees in the fine arts? Only for commie pinko lib-tards. Anti-intellectualism is alive and thriving in Texas. And truth be known, across much of the USA.
> 
> Yeah, we get it Kerby...in your world, and in Texas, "art" means easily-accessible, facile works. Stuff done from roughly 1700 to 1865. That to you is the "well-done art". If you do not have the education, or the artistic sensibility, or the critical thinking ability to step outside your narrow concept of what art "is", then you simply say it's all crap. You are one of a hundred million uneducated Amuuuuricans, all dissing "art" that they cannot understand. You mock what you do not understand. You mock that which you have not studied. You mock the cultures of countries you're not from. You mock the music of people who are different  from you. "We get it, Kerby".
> 
> Buy some books about art. Then read them. And then after reading them, then STUDY them. Diligently. Go to some museums. And then, just maybe, and the maybe is strong, you'll have the beginning of an inkling of a clue about what "art" is, and what it does, and just maybe, you'll revise your blanket statement. (Oh, who the heck am I kidding...go back to eating Doritos while watching your Jersey Shore episodes on Hulu, while you pass your life waiting for the next Dallas Cowboy's loss this weekend.)
Click to expand...


It would take years to appropriately respond to this post.  It would take you several years to digest it, refute it, argue against it, and then understand it.  I don't have that kind of time, so for your benefit, the end conclusion is you are full of it.


----------



## tirediron

Actually Derrel, that wasn't supposed to be an invitation to bash him, I just don't understand how ANY one person can make such a sweeping judgment about something so vast as "art" and why he feels he is qualified to make such a statement. Even if your last name is Angelo, I don't think you'd be qualified (but, I'll grant that you'd have a lot more credibility).


----------



## tirediron

Dao said:


> For some reasons, I thought Overread changed his handle to Sharpness.   Oh well ...


----------



## unpopular

c.cloudwalker said:


> Bitter Jeweler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do realize this was all cutting edge at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and probably as sharp as they could get.
Click to expand...


Ummm. NO!

Office Photos ~ 1920s
http://fashion-era.com/images/1920s_photos/flappers_duo.jpg
1920's Fashion

The optics that they had available were not as good as what we have today (or even 15 years later) but these images were made to be soft. They were pictorials.

Seriously guys. Take an art history class.


----------



## bentcountershaft

I'm doing a little catch up here so I just want to make sure I have this straight.  We are talking opinions here, right?  I mean we aren't arguing the specific gravity of battery acid or something concrete like that are we?


----------



## unpopular

1.258 @ 57° F

---

We can debate opinions, so long as it doesn't get into personal attacks. I always find the IMO disclaimer to be funny, most of what we discuss is in our opinion, and in some ways everything is because we have an opinion about the sources we trust. There is no reason to get all butt hurt when someone disagrees with us or tries to force their opinions on us like fact, this really has nothing to do with issue at hand. Just your ego. Which is pretty pathetic that weenies on the internet can reduce our ego to relying on insulting one anothers fingernails simply by how strongly they word their opinions.

---

Bitter, you often criticize my approach to art because I believe that art is valid even if nobody agrees that it is, you have often asserted that what has merit is determined by consensus. Yet here, many people would agree that a successful photograph is sharply in focus. Do less sharp images hold less artistic merit because they aren't as appreciated by the consensus?


----------



## Derrel

Getting back on track to the ORIGINAL POST, which featured three years' worth of high-level, juried American pictorialist photography. Here's a good, very short, one-page introduction to Pictorialism in America:  Pictorialism in America | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

I'd like to quote a passage: "After the introduction of the handheld amateur camera by Kodak in 1888, patrician gentlemen with artistic ambitions no longer dominated the medium of photography. As an army of weekend "snapshooters" invaded the photographic realm, a small but persistent group of photographers staked their medium's claim to membership among the fine arts. They rejected the point-and-shoot approach to photography and embraced labor-intensive processes such as gum bichromate printing, which involved hand-coating artist papers with homemade emulsions and pigments, or they made platinum prints, which yielded rich, tonally subtle images. Such photographs emphasized the role of the photographer as craftsman and countered the argument that photography was an entirely mechanical medium. Alfred Stieglitz was the most prominent spokesperson for these photographers in America, and in 1902 he and several like-minded associates in the New York Camera Club&#8212;including Gertrude Käsebier (33.43.132), Alvin Langdon Coburn (1987.1100.13), and Frank Eugene (55.635.12)&#8212;broke away from the club to form what they dubbed the Photo-Secession."

This Museum of Modern Art-sponsored web page has a brief, seven-image slide show with some good Pictorialist photos. I find it interesting that Pictorialism was created as being partly a reaction to "the point and shoot approach to photography" that was popularized by lighter, smaller, more-affordable, hand-held cameras of the type that George Eastman's KODAK company had introduced!


----------



## Josh66

I have a picture of a relative taken around 1880 that is pretty sharp.  My dad has even older ones that are also sharp.


I also agree that softness has it's place.  Some people don't like it, other people do...


----------



## bentcountershaft

unpopular said:


> 1.258 @ 57° F



Only if the battery is 100% charged so you're almost wrong which is good enough for me to berate you incessantly for the next three pages!!!




unpopular said:


> We can debate opinions, so long as it doesn't get into personal attacks. I always find the IMO disclaimer to be funny, most of what we discuss is in our opinion, and in some ways everything is because we have an opinion about the sources we trust. There is no reason to get all butt hurt when someone disagrees with us or tries to force their opinions on us like fact, this really has nothing to do with issue at hand. Just your ego. Which is pretty pathetic that weenies on the internet can reduce our ego to relying on insulting one anothers fingernails simply by how strongly they word their opinions.



Opinions are always open for debate, but I just don't see the point in any one getting too bent out of shape over something like art.  It just seems like the ones that have the biggest problem with it are the ones that don't get it.  You rarely see someone start out a conversation vehemently stating something is art, but it's pretty common for the opposite to happen.



unpopular said:


> Bitter, you often criticize my approach to art because I believe that art is valid even if nobody agrees that it is, you have often asserted that what has merit is determined by consensus. Yet here, many people would agree that a successful photograph is sharply in focus. Do less sharp images hold less artistic merit because they aren't as appreciated by the consensus?



I know my opinion wasn't asked but I'm going to offer it any way.  I have a very open mind when it comes to art and to me, there is no good or bad art.  There's only art I like and art I don't like.


----------



## tirediron

O|||||||O said:


> I have a picture of a relative taken around 1880 that is pretty sharp. My dad has even older ones that are also sharp.
> 
> 
> I also agree that softness has it's place. Some people don't like it, other people do...


Sharpness... selective colouring.  Hey... they both begin with 'S'!!!!


----------



## Derrel

Oh, fer crying out loud!!! The quality of photographic equipment  by the 1870's was so high that larger glass-plate exposures could reveal what we would today think of as being "high-resolution photographs". Just stop by the Shorpy web blog, and feel free to browse through many incredibly sharp, contrasty, well-focused photographs made all across the USA in the 1870's, 1880's, 1890's, and the first two decades of the 20th century.

Here is just ONE example. 1903, "The Buggy Company". The Buggy Company: 1903 | Shorpy Historical Photo Archive

Knoxville, Tennessee, circa 1903. Yet another view of that bustling commercial artery known as Gay Street, home to Broyles, McClellan & Lackey, dealers in Seeds, Fertilizers, Farm Machinery and Buggies, Harness and Horse Goods. 8x10 inch dry plate glass negative, Detroit Publishing Company.

In honor of thread starter Bitter Jeweler, take a look at this 1910 photo of the beach at Gordon Park, in Cleveland, Ohio.
Gordon Park: 1910 | Shorpy Historical Photo Archive

8x10 inch dry plate glass negative


----------



## unpopular

Bitter Jeweler said:


> [Unpopular], how would one go about duplicating this sort of softness using todays technology?
> Could something be done to a screw on filter to mimic this style with current lens selection?
> Could something be done to the lens element, creating dedicated soft lenses?
> Is it more than just the lens, and includes paper choices, film choices, etc?



As i said, most of these look like gum prints, which were very popular amongst the 19th and early 20th century pictorialists. The process is pretty straighforward, with lots of control, though can be very time consuming and frustrating to get a gallery-quality print out of.

The 19th century gum bichromate process in 21st century concept and techniques « Gum Bichromates « Formulas And How-To « AlternativePhotography.com

You can get the chemicals from ebay, or photographer's formulary. You can make negatives using an inkjet printer or laser printer, or have them made at places like Kinkos. If you ave a darkroom, the best enlarging negatives for alt process is Kodak Industrex, which can be found on ebay. Print exposure can be done in the sunlight or with a UV lamp bank.

dichromated colloids are an extremely versatile medium, i've used pig blood as the colloid before - it produced great results with a metallic copper metamerism. It's an amazing process. 

Also, William Mortensen is like Ansel Adams pictorial nemisis. He wrote an entire set of books similar to Adams' geared more towered pictorialism.


----------



## Dao

Some of those old photos are quite sharp.   Russia in color, a century ago - The Big Picture - Boston.com (old photos capture in color 100 years ago)

And sure.  blur photos have it place.


----------



## Josh66

tirediron said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a picture of a relative taken around 1880 that is pretty sharp. My dad has even older ones that are also sharp.
> 
> 
> I also agree that softness has it's place. Some people don't like it, other people do...
> 
> 
> 
> Sharpness... selective colouring.  Hey... they both begin with 'S'!!!!
Click to expand...

And that picture I have is Sepia toned too.


----------



## Derrel

unpopular said:
			
		

> >>SNIP>> Also, William Mortensen is like Ansel Adams pictorial nemisis. He wrote an entire set of books similar to Adams' geared more towered pictorialism.



Adams spent a good deal of personal effort at slandering, libeling, and running down William Mortensen--for literally years on end. Adams' disdain for Mortensen was  a huge black mark on his character, and showed was a pompous douchebag Ansel Adams was at his core. Adams went to quite a bit of effort to disparage Mortensen, which is a fact that the Adams groupies really, really hate to see brought up in public.

Read these two articles, and you'll never view Adams in the same way again.

http://photo.net/photography-education-forum/005fZU


http://www.robertjonesphoto.com/anseladams.html


----------



## j-digg

Derrel said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>SNIP>> Also, William Mortensen is like Ansel Adams pictorial nemisis. He wrote an entire set of books similar to Adams' geared more towered pictorialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adams spent a good deal of personal effort at slandering, libeling, and running down William Mortensen--for literally years on end. Adams' disdain for Mortensen was  a huge black mark on his character, and showed was a pompous douchebag Ansel Adams was at his core. Adams went to quite a bit of effort to disparage Mortensen, which is a fact that the Adams groupies really, really hate to see brought up in public.
> 
> Read these two articles, and you'll never view Adams in the same way again.
> 
> William Mortensen: A Revival: The Strange Case of William Mortensen - Photo.net Education Forum
> 
> 
> :: Robert Jones - Philosophy - The Ansel Adams Mystique ::
Click to expand...


Damn, I dont know if i really want to haha.


----------



## rexbobcat

I never realized how pissy and condescending photographers can be. I mean, seriously guys? I understand that some of you believe yourselves to be pretty badass at photographic knowledge, art, and wit (which only works if you're British, obviously), but get off each others' backs. 

If I ever find a genie, my first wish will be for a magical needle that pops egos. 

Now, to answer the thread's question. No, I don't think it's overrated. Many of those photographs are really artistic, but you can't really tell what they are (a few of them). For modern photojournalism, this is not a good thing. That's what I believe.

It's like if we took a portrait of the president. It would just look like a blob with vaguely recognizable human features.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Photography encompasses so much more than just photojournalism though.  Not to knock photojournalism at all, but it isn't everything.


----------



## blackrose89

rexbobcat said:


> I never realized how pissy and condescending photographers can be. I mean, seriously guys? I understand that some of you believe yourselves to be pretty badass at photographic knowledge, art, and wit (which only works if you're British, obviously), but get off each others' backs. If I ever find a genie, my first wish will be for a magical needle that pops egos. Now, to answer the thread's question. No, I don't think it's overrated. Many of those photographs are really artistic, but you can't really tell what they are (a few of them). For modern photojournalism, this is not a good thing. That's what I believe.It's like if we took a portrait of the president. It would just look like a blob with vaguely recognizable human features.


So agreed! I enjoy the CC, but I've never seen such hostility on any other forum, or in any other hobby/field for that matter.


----------



## belial

bentcountershaft said:
			
		

> Photography encompasses so much more than just photojournalism though.  Not to knock photojournalism at all, but it isn't everything.



Agreed.  Photojournalism is just one facet of photography. And many other facets have a lot more artistic expression


----------



## Vtec44

blackrose89 said:


> So agreed! I enjoy the CC, but I've never seen such hostility on any other forum, or in any other hobby/field for that matter.



You should have seen the gun forums I'm on, and how they're so meticulous about gun safety even if only in pictures.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Vtec44 said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So agreed! I enjoy the CC, but I've never seen such hostility on any other forum, or in any other hobby/field for that matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should have seen the gun forums I'm on, and how they're so meticulous about gun safety even if only in pictures.
Click to expand...


This place is nothing compared to some guitar forums when discussing whether solid state amps/digital processing can sound as good as tube amps.  It get really ugly really quick.


----------



## rexbobcat

bentcountershaft said:


> Photography encompasses so much more than just photojournalism though.  Not to knock photojournalism at all, but it isn't everything.



That may be true, but if sharpness was overrated then one of the points brought up during several photo critiques in this particular forum would not be "the image looks a little soft." 

That's not to say that some images aren't too sharp to the point of being aesthetically...ugly, but I just think that a photographer can succeed in most facets of photography with sharp images, and that incredibly soft images like the ones in the PDF are now accepted in a specialized sense.

I mean, from an artistic standpoint, yeah, sure, sharpness probably isn't the end-all be-all. But from a societal standpoint, the majority of people (I believe, again) want sharp images.

I also think it depends on the subject as well. If I was shooting a wedding and I shoot a purposefully blurry image of the bride's silhouette looking out of a window or something, then I think that it would really enhance the atmosphere and have creative merit. However; if I took a blurry picture of her and her parents smiling with their arms around each other, then I think it would be hard to sell it on the basis of "artistic vision." 

If that makes sense.....


----------



## blackrose89

To me, asking if sharpness is important is like asking if a drawing needs to be realistic. I'd say 95% of the time, a drawing should be and the goal generally is getting the drawing to be as realistic as possible (or a photo as sharp as possible). But then there are a few, the 5%, that have a distinct and creative enough style that the drawing can still look really good, despite it being realistc. Just like how realistic a drawing is, the sharpness is a testament do the skills of the photographer.


----------



## kundalini

Nadar (photographer)


----------



## unpopular

^^ Bitter @ 1:07


----------



## bentcountershaft

rexbobcat said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photography encompasses so much more than just photojournalism though.  Not to knock photojournalism at all, but it isn't everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be true, but if sharpness was overrated then one of the points brought up during several photo critiques in this particular forum would not be "the image looks a little soft."
> 
> That's not to say that some images aren't too sharp to the point of being aesthetically...ugly, but I just think that a photographer can succeed in most facets of photography with sharp images, and that incredibly soft images like the ones in the PDF are now accepted in a specialized sense.
> 
> I mean, from an artistic standpoint, yeah, sure, sharpness probably isn't the end-all be-all. But from a societal standpoint, the majority of people (I believe, again) want sharp images.
> 
> I also think it depends on the subject as well. If I was shooting a wedding and I shoot a purposefully blurry image of the bride's silhouette looking out of a window or something, then I think that it would really enhance the atmosphere and have creative merit. However; if I took a blurry picture of her and her parents smiling with their arms around each other, then I think it would be hard to sell it on the basis of "artistic vision."
> 
> If that makes sense.....
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, you wrote a reasonable response and I'm not used to dealing with those around here.  I realize you're fairly new here so could you edit it to include some sarchasm or better yet outright disgust?  

On a serious note, say B&#9837;, I agree that most photos benefit from being sharp but there are many instances where a softer look is beneficial.  Also, when you say:


rexbobcat said:


> That may be true, but if sharpness was overrated then one of the points brought up during several photo critiques in this particular forum would not be "the image looks a little soft."



I think most people say that because it's the easiest thing to see in a photograph.  You don't have to have a lot of experience to notice if an image is sharp or not.  Spotting white balance issues, composition problems or exposure problems, while not hard, does take a little more knowledge.


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> Oh, fer crying out loud!!! The quality of photographic equipment  by the 1870's was so high that larger glass-plate exposures could reveal what we would today think of as being "high-resolution photographs".



And let's not forget that the Daguerreotype has nano-scale resolution, perhaps only to be outdone by gold chloride glass, where gold chloride doped glass would be exposed to UV light and upon melting the molecules would migrate towered one another relative to exposure - a technology discovered in the 1930's iirc.


----------



## djacobox372

modern dslrs arent as sharp as a 8x10 glass plate camera from 100 years ago, unless your considering motion blur.


----------



## unpopular

Yeah. And I'm a communist.

Wait. That really has nothing to do with anything. Carry on guys.


----------



## enzodm

Bitter Jeweler said:


> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28015/28015-pdf.pdf
> In these books, there're many, many, amazing, outstanding images. Look how soft they are. I am really intrigued by this history. Would any one, or all of these images be better if they were sharp as today's standards? There's only a few that in would say yes to.



A side note: I do not think these images are about being soft, but about being "pictorial". Something pictorial now should perhaps take into account what happened in Painting in the last decades, which may drive towards other meanings of "pictorial".  By the way, cross fertilization occurred also on the other side, with hyperrealism. 
Said that, as told by others, sharpness is a value if you need to obtain sharp images. Softness as criticized in a beginners forum is most of times a random effect, with no justification.


----------



## Derrel

The people who "insist" that a photograph "must be sharp" are really little more than button-pushers who view photography as a purely mechanical activity, devoid of artistic expression.

*THAT* is the point of view that spawned pictorialism. Pictorialism was a response to the flood of amateur snap-shooters who worked with basically, no artistic interpretation, but instead just pointed their cameras and used them as mechanical recording devices. People who wanted nothing more than sharp, clear photos depicting EXACTLY WHAT they had seen, in real-life.

The idea that successful photographs* must be super-sharp, and clear* in order to be good photos is a point of view still alive today in the minds of many people, almost all who have never studied what photography truly can be, when it is practiced for the sake of art, self-expression, or exploration of ideas. Of course, if one's idea of photographic greatness is shooting the same basic pictures of men and women dressed up in almost identical costumes, week after week, in the 15 or 20 same locations and rooms, for years on end, then sharpness of the results is probably going to be considered *the* critical determining factor in evaluation one's success as a photographer. Well, that,and whether the client's check clears.

Those who argue that photography "must be this" or "must be that" in order to be successful have a very narrow-minded, simple concept of photography. The idea that "sharpness" is an absolute necessity for successful photographs is a joke. It's an incredibly lame, simpleton's argument. People who advocate that images must be sharp, and must be representational or accurate images of what existed in reality are not artists. Just button-pushers, who view photography as purely a mechanical recording process, devoid of any artistic potential, but really good at direct and pure recording of scenes and people.


----------



## Robin Usagani

My 2012 new year resolution, I will take more motion blurred photos of my subjects especially on my weddings.


----------



## unpopular

enzodm said:


> A side note: I do not think these images are about being soft, but about being "pictorial". Something pictorial now should perhaps take into account what happened in Painting in the last decades, which may drive towards other meanings of "pictorial".  By the way, cross fertilization occurred also on the other side, with hyperrealism.



Hyper-realism is kind of a gimmick, imo - intended only so that we oogle an artists *mad skillz*. In a way, super sharp photography for the sake of super sharp photography is oogling the photographer's bank account. I can't help but wonder if these visceral arguments in favor of absolute sharpness has more to do with lost cost than aesthetics.

I think that if an image is about fine detail, sharpness is important. If it's about intimacy, sharpness is distracting.


----------



## Kerbouchard

It's a strawman argument.  I don't know that anybody has said that a photo "must be sharp" or that a photo "must" be anything.  The closest was one of my earlier posts where I said being able to achieve a sharp photo was an essential skill for a photographer.

Oh, to put some of your other assumptions about me aside, I'm not a Cowboy's fan(Go Texans!). I've traveled the world and have seen some of the greatest art mankind has produced.  Some of it I appreciated and fell in love with.  Some was underwhelming and I believe to be overrated.  As far as 'art', see, I have this weird thing called a brain.  It allows me to look at something and make judgements for myself.  I don't need to read a book so that somebody else can tell me why I am supposed to like something.  I am sorry that you feel that is necessary to 'appreciate' some types of art.  As far as myself being an artist, I've never made that claim.  I've said over and over that I see photography from an Engineer's standpoint.  I can memorize the rules, memorize composition, memorize how to achieve certain effects, and produce 'artistic' images, but I am not an artist.

Oh, and sharpness is not overrated.  


Derrel said:


> The people who "insist" that a photograph "must be sharp" are really little more than button-pushers who view photography as a purely mechanical activity, devoid of artistic expression.
> 
> *THAT* is the point of view that spawned pictorialism. Pictorialism was a response to the flood of amateur snap-shooters who worked with basically, no artistic interpretation, but instead just pointed their cameras and used them as mechanical recording devices. People who wanted nothing more than sharp, clear photos depicting EXACTLY WHAT they had seen, in real-life.
> 
> The idea that successful photographs* must be super-sharp, and clear* in order to be good photos is a point of view still alive today in the minds of many people, almost all who have never studied what photography truly can be, when it is practiced for the sake of art, self-expression, or exploration of ideas. Of course, if one's idea of photographic greatness is shooting the same basic pictures of men and women dressed up in almost identical costumes, week after week, in the 15 or 20 same locations and rooms, for years on end, then sharpness of the results is probably going to be considered *the* critical determining factor in evaluation one's success as a photographer. Well, that,and whether the client's check clears.
> 
> Those who argue that photography "must be this" or "must be that" in order to be successful have a very narrow-minded, simple concept of photography. The idea that "sharpness" is an absolute necessity for successful photographs is a joke. It's an incredibly lame, simpleton's argument. People who advocate that images must be sharp, and must be representational or accurate images of what existed in reality are not artists. Just button-pushers, who view photography as purely a mechanical recording process, devoid of any artistic potential, but really good at direct and pure recording of scenes and people.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Kerbouchard said:


> I can memorize the rules, memorize composition, memorize how to achieve certain effects, and produce 'artistic' images, but *I am not an artist*.



And you shoot weddings??


----------



## Kerbouchard

Schwettylens said:


> Kerbouchard said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can memorize the rules, memorize composition, memorize how to achieve certain effects, and produce 'artistic' images, but *I am not an artist*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you shoot weddings??
Click to expand...


I'm really good at memorizing stuff.


----------



## jake337

I would think, the need for sharpness and image quality, would be directly related to your clientele needs. If someone is not paying you to take photos for them, then those needs are dependant on your personal opinion on the subject.

If someone pays for soft focus, give them soft focus.

If someone wants shallow DOF, give them shallow DOF.

If someone wants tack sharp throughtout, hyperfocal focus.


Or you can do whatever floats your boat and let those who enjoy it, enjoy it.


----------



## unpopular

If I may be so bold, I think I have cracked the art problem. Well. Maybe not. But i like my definition.

Art is any process by which the artist synthesizes a complex idea into a more simple form. The more complex the idea and the more simplified the synthesis the more merited the artwork.You could almost view art's success as a ratio between complexity and simplification; mathematicians call it "elegance" - which is funny, of the most hard and objective sciences - mathematics - they often use such loose and subjective quantification.






This definition does away with the old art/science dichotomy. It transcends the imprecise philosophies of aesthetics and excludes no genere or medium. Snapshots are art, landscapes are art, abstracts are art, portraits are art - they serve to synthesize a memory, a place, an idea or a person.

Yet unlike previous definitions, it clearly determines _functional _differences in various objects, yet still permits degrees of craft (that which serves only function) and art (that which is a synthesis of concepts) to simultaneously exist within any given object.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_gas

It's shape and construction is craft based on objective requirements determined by our knowledge of compressed gas, it's color is art - the synthesis of danger, awareness and caution; flammability and fire. 

What purpose does sharpness or lack of sharpness serve in any given image - what element of the experience does it synthesize? If sharpness is required for the sole purpose of seeing the objective subject (the "specimen" in my made up nomenclature), it is craft. If sharpness is there simply because it must be, then it serves no purpose.


----------



## blackrose89

I think certain people need to get off their high horse. Just because you excel at a hooby/profession doesn't give you the right to talk to/about people any way you want. I understand it's art, I understand its an image making form, I understand it takes years to get decent, I understand that a lot blood, sweat, tears and knowledge goes into it. But at the end of the day, you're taking photos, not ending world hunger. Chill.


----------



## bazooka

Derrel said:


> I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!



Is special training required to talk about and appreciate art?


----------



## Derrel

blackrose89 said:


> I think certain people need to get off their high horse. Just because you excel at a hooby/profession doesn't give you the right to talk to/about people any way you want. I understand it's art, I understand its an image making form, I understand it takes years to get decent, I understand that a lot blood, sweat, tears and knowledge goes into it. But at the end of the day, you're taking photos, not ending world hunger. Chill.



Aren't you supposed to be in your high school classes right now??? Are you texting this in from your phone?


----------



## unpopular

Derrel said:


> I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!



I sure as hell hope that wasn't directed towered me!

No matter, i agree. This is super elitist.


----------



## blackrose89

I'm a grown married women.


----------



## unpopular

blackrose89 said:


> I'm a grown married women.



pay no attention to him. he gets flustered and turns to insulting people for no other reason than they aren't old.

---

Derrel. Go drink some hydroquinone solution to calm down or something.


----------



## Derrel

bazooka said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is special training required to talk about and appreciate art?
Click to expand...


Yes. Can you speak Latin? Can you speak Russian? Are you well-versed in Renaissance painting? Can you talk about organic chemistry with any degree of certainty? Can you perform dental operations? Can you design a 12-story building? Do you know the difference between kitsch and art? YES, education is required to be able to truly appreciate ANYTHING.

Most Amuuricans have ZERO art training, and do not understand the difference between kitsch and true fine art...Would you ask if special training were required to talk about heart surgery, or aerospace engineering principles? The fact that you are asking such a question shows that you have a low appreciation of art, and probably, no education or training in art. Unless of course, you're just being a smart-ass. If a person has NO IDEA of the history of art, over time, then he is an uninformed speaker on that topic. He's the kind of guy that one overhears at museums making ignorant, Billy-Bob type statements such as, "Well, my DOG coulda' made that painting!"

Anti-intellectualism is alive and well. Art is a subject that most Americans are entirely,totally,totally unfamiliar with, except at the crayon and paste level...and yet, we hear boatloads of opinions about what art is, and how worthless it is, and many people make a lot of proclamations about art, *as IF they KNOW* something about it....and yet, we seldom hear those same loudmouths talking about organic chemistry, architecture, or internal medicine "as if they know a lot about *those subjects*".

Wonder why that is? People with ZERO training in "art" think they know all about it...and yet they do not pretend to be experts in other fields....


----------



## Kerbouchard

Derrel said:


> I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!
> 
> Head on over to Burger King tomorrow for the supreme culinary experience of your life...FREE French fries tomorrow, December 16, 2011.
> 
> On the way there, be sure to buy some pink flamingos for the front yard. And get a new copy of Dogs Playing Poker to hang in the living room.



Derrel, the thing about you is you are intellectually bankrupt.  You assume too much.  I have an extensive education in art, but I didn't get it in a classroom or sitting at home reading a book.  Although I have done both, I much prefer taking a stroll down the streets of Dubai or Singapore or popping into a museum.

Learning to appreciate art by reading what other people think about it is like learning to love music by looking at sheet music.


----------



## unpopular

Hey Derrel, 1965 called. Asked you to return the academic snobbery where it belongs!


----------



## Robin Usagani

Lets go out and shoot and make "art".  Blurry or not, post them up.


----------



## blackrose89

Derrel said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how a guy who has no education or understanding of art talks about artistic ideas...yeah....funny stuff!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Is special training required to talk about and appreciate art?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most Amuuricans have ZERO art training, and do not understand the difference between kitsch and true fine art...Would you ask if special training were required to talk about heart surgery, or aerospace engineering principles? Wonder why that is? People with ZERO training in "art" think they know all about it...and yet they do not pretend to be experts in other fields....
Click to expand...

Oh snap! It's about to get all racist up in here!


----------



## Derrel

blackrose89 said:


> I'm a grown married women.



I thought you posted images last week that your "boyfriend" wanted posted of you...you've been here less than a month....I must be confusing you with somebody else...


----------



## blackrose89

It was me, but it said "husband" title said "husband"


----------



## onerugrat

I like sharp cheese , especially with crackers!


----------



## unpopular

onerugrat said:


> I like sharp cheese , especially with crackers!



You know, it might sound weird, but I like sharp cheese dunked in Worcestershire sauce.

---

What is art, and how does it differ from communication:
is it art or communication? « word and image


----------



## Derrel

blackrose89 said:


> It was me, but it said "husband" title said "husband"



YEah, I went back through some of your posts, trying to find it....I see you've already pulled the photos you put up in the photo post after less than four days!!I have seen quite a few of your posts, and read them, and I thought you were a high school student, based on the bridge camera, the uncle's camera, claiming you live in a boring placer, and that native-born South Floridians, as you say over and over "hate" the place,etc,etc.. I honestly thought you were a high school student. Seriously. 

_I have to say, that I have only been at this for a lil over a month, and I have been on here for a few weeks, and I really feel like I have grown a LOT as a photographer is just this short amount of time. 


I'm a major advocate for CC. Also, when I get a "good" photo compliment, it means a LOT more._


from  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...you-enjoy-gets-negative-cc-3.html#post2422391


http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/265694-hubby-wanted-some-cc-his-photos-lol-2.htm

This is the post I was remembering...on that same day, I read a post mentioning "photos my boyfriend took"...


----------



## unpopular

^^ leave her alone, she's only like 21. those seemingly negative sentiments of where she lives only indicate a youthful optimism that we loose once learning that everywhere sucks equally.


----------



## blackrose89

If you think everyone is so intellectually beneath you, why do you post here? You know you don't have to right? Instead of whining about how ignorant everyone is why don't you find a place that's more on par with you superior attitude erm.... I meant level!


----------



## Derrel

Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!

You are hilarious!!

And to think that your moniker here on this forum is a character from a book!!!! Go ahead people, look up "Kerbouchard"....it's hilarious!


----------



## unpopular

You know, he never answers to my criticism.



Derrel said:


> Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is  frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not  surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!
> 
> You are hilarious!!
> 
> And to think that your moniker here on this forum is a character from a  book!!!! Go ahead people, look up "Kerbouchard"....it's  hilarious!



who are you even talking to?


----------



## Kerbouchard

I don't frown upon book learning or formal education.  I am simply saying it is not the only way to learn.  Learning by actually experiencing the art, thinking about why you like it or dislike it, and forming your own opinion is not invalid.

Regarding, 'book-learnin', I am a voracious reader.  I have 10's of thousands of books in my personal collection and have read many of them dozens of times.  Yes, some of them are junk westerns, some are philosophy, some are theoretical physics; pretty much everything from Dan Brown to Sun Tzu.

As far as my moniker, yes, it is indeed a character from a book called The Walking Drum.  My signature is also a quote from that character.  Maybe you should take note of it before forming opinions on my education or how I feel about learning.



Derrel said:


> Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!
> 
> You are hilarious!!
> 
> And to think that your moniker here on this forum is a character from a book!!!! Go ahead people, look up "Kerbouchard"....it's hilarious!


----------



## unpopular

You know. Derrel isn't the only over educated boob around here. The only difference is my art history lessons didn't end at Andy Warhol.


----------



## bazooka

So if I like appreciate a photo, and because I am not formally trained in art, your line of reasoning leads me to conclude that the photo I appreciate cannot be art.


----------



## rexbobcat

unpopular said:


> If I may be so bold, I think I have cracked the art problem. Well. Maybe not. But i like my definition.
> 
> Art is any process by which the artist synthesizes a complex idea into a more simple form. The more complex the idea and the more simplified the synthesis the more merited the artwork.You could almost view art's success as a ratio between complexity and simplification; mathematicians call it "elegance" - which is funny, of the most hard and objective sciences - mathematics - they often use such loose and subjective quantification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This definition does away with the old art/science dichotomy. It transcends the imprecise philosophies of aesthetics and excludes no genere or medium. Snapshots are art, landscapes are art, abstracts are art, portraits are art - they serve to synthesize a memory, a place, an idea or a person.
> 
> Yet unlike previous definitions, it clearly determines _functional _differences in various objects, yet still permits degrees of craft (that which serves only function) and art (that which is a synthesis of concepts) to simultaneously exist within any given object.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottled gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's shape and construction is craft based on objective requirements determined by our knowledge of compressed gas, it's color is art - the synthesis of danger, awareness and caution; flammability and fire.
> 
> What purpose does sharpness or lack of sharpness serve in any given image - what element of the experience does it synthesize? If sharpness is required for the sole purpose of seeing the objective subject (the "specimen" in my made up nomenclature), it is craft. If sharpness is there simply because it must be, then it serves no purpose.



You don't need to be able to paint/draw/photograph to be good.
 It's all about being over-interpreted and misunderstood.


----------



## unpopular

rexbobcat said:


> It's all about being over-interpreted and misunderstood.



Thank you, Mr. Rorty.


----------



## Destin

unpopular said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a grown married women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pay no attention to him. he gets flustered and turns to insulting people for no other reason than they aren't old.
> 
> ---
> 
> Derrel. Go drink some hydroquinone solution to calm down or something.
Click to expand...


I've noticed that this is a problem on these forums. I'm personally sick of having people (no names will be mentioned) pull the "age card" on me whenever I say something they don't like. It's automatically, "you're only 19, what do you know?" I'm honestly sick of it. 

There is no correlation between age and photographic ability/knowledge. Sure I'm only 19, but I've been shooting for 5 years now. But God forbid I come on here and give advice to a guy that's 45 and is just getting into photography, because I'm only 19, so I don't know anything, right?


----------



## rexbobcat

unpopular said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all about being over-interpreted and misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mr. Rorty.
Click to expand...


<sarcasm>Well, hey. I'm just saying that good art is only good because it obviously has some sort of socio-economic/racial/political/philosophical/sublime undertone.

Obviously.</sarcasm>


----------



## blackrose89

Destin said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a grown married women.
> 
> 
> 
> pay no attention to him. he gets flustered and turns to insulting people for no other reason than they aren't old.---Derrel. Go drink some hydroquinone solution to calm down or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed that this is a problem on these forums. I'm personally sick of having people (no names will be mentioned) pull the "age card" on me whenever I say something they don't like. It's automatically, "you're only 19, what do you know?" I'm honestly sick of it. There is no correlation between age and photographic ability/knowledge. Sure I'm only 19, but I've been shooting for 5 years now. But God forbid I come on here and give advice to a guy that's 45 and is just getting into photography, because I'm only 19, so I don't know anything, right?
Click to expand...

So true! You can critique at any stage of life! I've said it before: I don't have to be a chef to know a bad meal when I taste one. And what is a bad meal to me could be great to someone else.


----------



## tirediron

Kerbouchard said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think Derrel ate a bowl a douchebag for breakfast this morning before he opened this thread. Normally I think his posts are funny, but he's just being a flat out dick in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think he's just a little jealous that the people he is calling uneducated have actually gotten to see the things he has only read about.  I actually feel a bit sorry for him.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we need to back up the bus and decide what constitutes 'artistic education'.  I'm a firm believer that experience is the best teacher of all.  My only 'book learnin' ' on the subject was back in Grade 11, which was *cough* *cough* a few years ago.  HOWEVER, I've traveled all over the world, and visited (and appreciated) everything from the slums of India to the Uffizi Gallery.  Can I spout off the names of ten famous painters...  probably, with a little hesitation.  Can I give you a dissertation on their technique or evolution of their creative process?  Not in a million friggin' years, BUT I can tell you what I like.  How much more education does someone really need?

As for the original question, if an image is made soft by the photographer deliberately, then it's art.  If it was by accident, whether through ignorance of the process, or any other unintentional process, then I'm not so sure.


----------



## tirediron

blackrose89 said:


> Destin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> pay no attention to him. he gets flustered and turns to insulting people for no other reason than they aren't old.---Derrel. Go drink some hydroquinone solution to calm down or something.
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that this is a problem on these forums. I'm personally sick of having people (no names will be mentioned) pull the "age card" on me whenever I say something they don't like. It's automatically, "you're only 19, what do you know?" I'm honestly sick of it. There is no correlation between age and photographic ability/knowledge. Sure I'm only 19, but I've been shooting for 5 years now. But God forbid I come on here and give advice to a guy that's 45 and is just getting into photography, because I'm only 19, so I don't know anything, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So true! You can critique at any stage of life! I've said it before: I don't have to be a chef to know a bad meal when I taste one. And what is a bad meal to me could be great to someone else.
Click to expand...

Very well put.

I will say Destin, that there doesn't have to be a correlation between age and knowledge, but there can be.  With experience, comes age.


----------



## unpopular

Reading is for weenies who like quoting Ansel Adams. If you actually _think _enough, you'll have the satisfaction of 99% of your thoughts being similar to some of the greatest minds. It's not that these people were extraordinarily brilliant, it's that they had the will and freedom to _think_ rather than regurgitate.


----------



## bentcountershaft

unpopular said:


> Reading is for weenies who like quoting Ansel Adams. If you actually _think _enough, you'll have the satisfaction of 99% of your thoughts being similar to some of the greatest minds. It's not that these people were extraordinarily brilliant, it's that they had the will and freedom to _think_ rather than regurgitate.



I'm sorry, my sarcasm meter is broken so I'm not sure how to take this.


----------



## Destin

unpopular said:


> Reading is for weenies who like quoting Ansel Adams. If you actually _think _enough, you'll have the satisfaction of 99% of your thoughts being similar to some of the greatest minds. It's not that these people were extraordinarily brilliant, it's that they had the will and freedom to _think_ rather than regurgitate.



Aha I'll feed the fire a little: I've only seen 2 of ansel adams photos that I even thought were decent. Most of them are just black and white snapshots with good darkroom work applied. But as the saying goes, you can polish a turd, but it's still a turd.


----------



## cbarbero

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Photography is art. Each person see's art differently.


----------



## blackrose89

The thing is these types of threads are ridiculous. There is no definitive right or wrong. There is no "ultimate" source. Everyone here is right and wrong, because this is all opinion/personal belief related based on interpretation of what art should/could/limited to be. All that happens is people going round and round. I don't think I've ever seen one person change their standing because of a response to a thread.


----------



## onerugrat

Blackrose, are you a libra? This is so libraish.    (im a libra so allowed to ask)


----------



## blackrose89

Gemini actually


----------



## rexbobcat

unpopular said:


> You do know that is 180° from what I am after in my definition, right?





unpopular said:


> Art is any process by which the artist synthesizes a complex idea into a more simple form. The more complex the idea and the more simplified the synthesis the more merited the artwork.



I don't think the minds of the majority of people play well with abstraction. "What does it all mean?" "That line must stand for something other than...well...a line" etc....


----------



## bentcountershaft

Bitter Jeweler said:


> bazooka said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the while Bitter sits back and eats his popcorn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I have been reading when I can. Great discussion for the *most* part.
> 
> It is xMastime, and my nasty, grotesque fingers are busy making money.
> 
> Lengthy responses will come later.
> 
> I'd kill for some popcorn right now. I am starving.
Click to expand...


Borrowed a coworkers camera (that had apparently been time traveling) to hook you up.







You're welcome.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

It's going back downhill now...it was ok for a while but that's over now. 

What a sad crummy mess this is.


----------



## terri

GeorgieGirl said:


> It's going back downhill now...it was ok for a while but that's over now.
> 
> What a sad crummy mess this is.


Yes, I agree.  :thumbdown:    Yours is probably the best post from the last 7 pages of this thread, and I just spent way too much time deleting parts of it.



> Lengthy responses will come later.


That's cool, Bitter, but I will ask that you refrain from any personal jabs or saying anything inflammatory that might tempt others to respond in kind - then I'll have to make the whole thread vanish.    

To all: tolerance and basic politeness need to be more prevalent around here.    None of the mods have time for cherry picking this kind of thing, so you'll find most of your threads deleted when they go south like this.     Thanks for cooperating!


----------



## bazooka

I hope the popcorn gets to stay.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler

terri said:


> Lengthy responses will come later.
> 
> 
> 
> That's cool, Bitter, but I will ask that you refrain from any personal jabs or saying anything inflammatory that might tempt others to respond in kind - then I'll have to make the whole thread vanish.
> 
> To all: tolerance and basic politeness need to be more prevalent around here.    None of the mods have time for cherry picking this kind of thing, so you'll find most of your threads deleted when they go south like this.     Thanks for cooperating!
Click to expand...


I wasn't going to attack my attacker. I was going to respond to Derrel and and Unpopular, and the few others who brought up good points and asked good questions.

This subject interests me. THAT'S why I posted it, and backed it up with examples of some great work.



Thanks for the popcorn!!!


----------



## enzodm

bentcountershaft said:


>



Not bad, but too soft.


----------



## bazooka

Soft popcorn?  Unacceptable.


----------



## AlexMurr

Here is my question: Is desiring sharpness a result of us being socially conditioned as to what a photograph 'should' look like or is it our own personal taste of what we would prefere the result to be? I like it all personally. Some of the most visually strong photos Ive scene are the ones being out of focus. If the subject matter enough significance in substance then to me, it doesnt matter.


----------



## unpopular

rexbobcat said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that is 180° from what I am after in my definition, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Art is any process by which the artist synthesizes a complex idea into a more simple form. The more complex the idea and the more simplified the synthesis the more merited the artwork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the minds of the majority of people play well with abstraction. "What does it all mean?" "That line must stand for something other than...well...a line" etc....
Click to expand...


Nope. Because art isn't about communication, it's about understanding the world. I am very much not a fan of art being defined by the audience, and even less of a fan of shallow symbolism.

But there is always synthesis, the line represents form, composition, placement - some other aesthetic or conceptual consideration. It's never functioning just as a line.


----------



## o hey tyler

bazooka said:


> Soft popcorn?  Unacceptable.



I DEMAND ROCK SOLID POPCORN. OR NO CORN.


----------



## unpopular

isn't that just unpopped popcorn?


----------



## unpopular

blackrose89 said:


> The thing is these types of threads are ridiculous. There is no definitive right or wrong. There is no "ultimate" source. Everyone here is right and wrong, because this is all opinion/personal belief related based on interpretation of what art should/could/limited to be. All that happens is people going round and round. I don't think I've ever seen one person change their standing because of a response to a thread.



I don't understand why people fear discourse to which there is no solution, that to me is the most beautiful part. The artist tries to understand that which cannot be understood, the whole of the universe; i refuse to give up and make pretty pictures that appeal to our most basic sensibilities.


----------



## mishele

What fun would life be if we just all agreed?! lol :greenpbl:


----------



## unpopular

I just wish it didn't have to get down to condescending one another.

Behavior I'd never engage in. The shame of it all. The shame...


----------



## rexbobcat

unpopular said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that is 180° from what I am after in my definition, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> Art is any process by which the artist synthesizes a complex idea into a more simple form. The more complex the idea and the more simplified the synthesis the more merited the artwork.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think the minds of the majority of people play well with abstraction. "What does it all mean?" "That line must stand for something other than...well...a line" etc....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. Because art isn't about communication, it's about understanding the world. I am very much not a fan of art being defined by the audience, and even less of a fan of shallow symbolism.
> 
> But there is always synthesis, the line represents form, composition, placement - some other aesthetic or conceptual consideration. It's never functioning just as a line.
Click to expand...


True. But if it was solely about understanding the world, then people wouldn't try so hard to get their art recognized in some shape or form. I don't want to sound like I'm generalizing a whole section of the population (but I'm going to anyways) - artists seem to want to communicate to others their understanding of the world. Isn't that the point of creating the best photo possible, and showing it to people? To allow the world to take a glimpse into how you think, what your understanding of the world is?

I can understand how the line can complement a piece aesthetically or conceptually, but that does not necessarily mean that it is trying to convey some complex meaning other than the literal quality of the piece of art.

Like a photo of a pair of railroad tracks leading into the distance. Maybe the photographer was trying to understand how there is no finish line for human lives, and it's really the journey that matters...yeah.

Or maybe the railroad tracks show a really good example of how parallel lines and symmetry create an appealing image. I don't think that art always has to be about simplifying complexity. Sometimes it's just pretty. 

This is just my opinion though. I'm not educated in the arts, so I'm not sure if I'm qualified to even be discussing this. But whatever.


----------



## pgriz

Perception of art requires only an openness of mind and eye.
Recognizing &#8220;cause and effect&#8221; requires training and knowledge.
Being able to describe it in context, requires vocabulary and education.
Perception can lead to feeling, but context gives it meaning.
Returning to David&#8217;s original question &#8211; Sharpness is an attribute whose importance depends on the context, and the context may require a non-literal interpretation of the imagery.  We have learned that &#8220;sharpness&#8221; is where we should be looking &#8211; but is the photographer directing our attention honestly, or duplicitously?  And if the latter, why are we given the sleigh-of-hand to see what he/she wants us to see?


----------



## michaeljamesphoto

I do not believe sharpness is overrated, I believe it has it's place and applications just like any other aspect of photography. You could look at B&W and say "color is overrated" with the same mindset, and very few people would agree. It all depends on the message you are trying to convey and the specific look and feel you are going for in each particular image.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

LightSpeed said:


> blackrose89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is these types of threads are ridiculous. There is no definitive right or wrong. There is no "ultimate" source. Everyone here is right and wrong, because this is all opinion/personal belief related based on interpretation of what art should/could/limited to be. All that happens is people going round and round. I don't think I've ever seen one person change their standing because of a response to a thread.
> 
> 
> 
> It's an attention seeking thread from an insecure, borderline manic depressant.The entire thread goes overboard with over- analyzing AND  bringing overboard technicality to a hobby. The OP posts this in a beginners forum. Limme scratch my head here.I won't comment on what's politically - technically  correct.I'll comment on what I see. And feel.Now, all you " followers" who can't wait to pull on bitters beard. He's mortal.There's nothing about him any different from any other internet , egotistical forum member.Such as myself. lolThe bottom line here is.............nearly all of you have commented " IT'S OOF." Or , IT'S NOT SHARP, OR, it looks soft"Now all of a sudden............The God of Photography says, " Hey wait a minute, maybe sharpness is overrated"And like a "herd" of bandits..............everybody piles on stroking his ego.It's a freggin joke and I call BS. Since no one else will.If nothing else, he knows how to take the fun out of having a camera.Now, I'm going to bed.I'll bicker with Tyler tomorrow, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW he's going to come running to this like a horse to a bucket, who hasn't had water in a week.And to think I looked up to you Mr. Jeweler. Oh well.Shyt happens.lesson learned
Click to expand...


OMG, what is your frigging problem? You sound like a jilted Hollywood lover....

And that might be too kind of a characterization after all you have had to say lately.

Jeeze.


----------



## unpopular

LightSpeed said:


> It's an attention seeking thread from an insecure, borderline manic depressant.



You know. Some of us here might actually be manic depressive and don't appreciate using our medical condition as an insult.


----------



## usayit

From artistic standpoint, Sharpness is overrated...
From a commercial business standpoint, it depends (on what sells, customer etc)

I found one of the  best ways to enjoy/experiment..... shoot with older vintage lenses.  One learns to appreciate all types of lenses.



Stepping back a bit...  I think all this technology in photography is WAY overrated.



PS>  Bitter Jeweler, thanks for linking the good read.


----------



## unpopular

rexbobcat said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the minds of the majority of people play well with abstraction. "What does it all mean?" "That line must stand for something other than...well...a line" etc....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Because art isn't about communication, it's about understanding the world. I am very much not a fan of art being defined by the audience, and even less of a fan of shallow symbolism.
> 
> But there is always synthesis, the line represents form, composition, placement - some other aesthetic or conceptual consideration. It's never functioning just as a line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. But if it was solely about understanding the world, then people wouldn't try so hard to get their art recognized in some shape or form. I don't want to sound like I'm generalizing a whole section of the population (but I'm going to anyways) - artists seem to want to communicate to others their understanding of the world. Isn't that the point of creating the best photo possible, and showing it to people? To allow the world to take a glimpse into how you think, what your understanding of the world is?
> 
> I can understand how the line can complement a piece aesthetically or conceptually, but that does not necessarily mean that it is trying to convey some complex meaning other than the literal quality of the piece of art.
> 
> Like a photo of a pair of railroad tracks leading into the distance. Maybe the photographer was trying to understand how there is no finish line for human lives, and it's really the journey that matters...yeah.
> 
> Or maybe the railroad tracks show a really good example of how parallel lines and symmetry create an appealing image. I don't think that art always has to be about simplifying complexity. Sometimes it's just pretty.
> 
> This is just my opinion though. I'm not educated in the arts, so I'm not sure if I'm qualified to even be discussing this. But whatever.
Click to expand...


I think you know more about art that you are letting yourself believe, and your misunderstanding of what I am saying is totally understandable precisely because there is a huge misunderstanding of art as a whole - which you've managed to have broken through.

There is this sophomoric approach to art that concludes everything must have some deep hidden meaning which you must read into. This Campbellian approach may keep cultural anthropologists busy and employed, but really doesn't have a lot to do with art or why it's created in the first place. Certainly, everything we do and enjoy we enjoy because it is filtered through our subconscious understanding, but that doesn't mean that we have to decode every single piece of artwork in order to appreciate or understand what it is we enjoy - or worse - what the artist's intentions were. 

I remember in a writing class some kid was going on about the symbolism in his novel he was writing - if the symbolism is known to the artist at the time of creation then it's contrived in fact, to get back to Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung, these contrived symbols aren't symbols at all, but rather signs.

_Certainly _art can be symbolic or "signatic" (made up word!), but this is not the extent of what art is or what it should be, and my definition does permit this. It doesn't need to be deep synthesis between the lines, though it could be. As with science, art can be synthesizing the natural world as it is. The train tracks could synthesize life and death, as Jung would assert, or it could synthesize a train track.

But there is PLENTY of complexity involved in objective reality, no more perhaps than subjective meanings. Complex needn't mean convoluted. If a photographer can capture the essence of what it means to objectively experience what he or she did at that moment is much more successful a synthesis than haphazardly conveying some vague emotion which she strongly felt at the time.

My whole goal is to break down these dichotomies of science and art, internal and external, artist and audience.


----------



## usayit

unpopular said:


> onerugrat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like sharp cheese , especially with crackers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, it might sound weird, but I like sharp cheese dunked in Worcestershire sauce.
Click to expand...


I've GOT to try that....  sounds good (to me at least)


----------



## LightSpeed

GeorgieGirl said:


> OMG, what is your frigging problem? You sound like a jilted Hollywood lover....
> 
> And that might be too kind of a characterization after all you have had to say lately.
> 
> Jeeze.



Post removed. I agree with exception to the part of your little fantasy ( jilted lover crap) I snapped at him in bad taste.
You may now mind your own business , Mother nature.


----------



## usayit

Derrel said:


> Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!



Derrel,  you are ignorant of Texas.  You should stop... 

<< Raised in Texas.  My high school is rated at the top tier nationally.  Texas also offers such a wide variety of college level opportunities not limited by one's parental wealth.   I was a "B" student in high school and a low "A" in college but I still surpass most ivy league and masters graduates at work.   

As someone said, you seem to be very good at reading.... I'm good at experimenting and learning through observation.    No reason to put others down for being wired differently.


----------



## unpopular

usayit said:


> As someone said, you seem to be very good at reading.... I'm good at experimenting and learning through experience.    No reason to put others down for being wired differently.



Perhaps Derrel is well read, but I am really not seeing a lot of evidence of that in this thread. Just a lot of the same vague and baseless "I know art when I see it" definition.


----------



## GeorgieGirl

LightSpeed said:
			
		

> Post removed. I agree with exception to the part of your little fantasy ( jilted lover crap) I snapped at him in bad taste.
> You may now mind your own business , Mother nature.



I hope you get banned real soon.


----------



## rexbobcat

usayit said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Kerby!!! Learning through reading is frowned upon in Texas!!! You're quite a clever fellow...I am not surprised that you don't like book-learnin'!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh snap?
> 
> As Valedictorian of my high school, I kindly ask you, Derrel, to just stop talking.
> Period.
> 
> But regardless of my academic record, you just seem like you have to much of a God-complex to be likeable.
> 
> And your use of stereotypes (ridiculous ones at that) is appalling, because you believe yourself to be clever and witty. But you are not.
> 
> You're just offensive, and I don't understand how you yourself have not been banned by now. Honestly.
Click to expand...


----------



## LightSpeed

GeorgieGirl said:


> I hope you get banned real soon.



Oh here we go.
Cry babying about banning people because they didn't like what they read.
Such is the Internet where not much else can be done, by those who spout off, but don't like being spouted off, to.
Remind you of anyone you know?


----------



## GeorgieGirl

LightSpeed said:
			
		

> Oh here we go.
> Cry babying about banning people because they didn't like what they read.
> Such is the Internet where not much else can be done, by those who spout off, but don't like being spouted off, to.
> Remind you of anyone you know?



No it doesn't remind me of anyone.  Tou are the only self professed drug addict on this site. It's clear to me why you behave the way you do and yet you label your behavior as simple as arrogance. 

Why don't you go and take some more drugs and them go and shoot some more poorly lit and soft focused shots of wasps and then come back here and call sharpness overrated. 

That's the topic. Not Bitter


----------



## Mitica100

OK everyone, let's all cool it and get back to the original thread. All I am reading now are insults flying right and left, which is not what TPF is all about. If you have anything at all positive to add to the thread, do so. Otherwise this thread is closing really soon.


----------

