# When did razor sharp images.....



## Montana (Feb 9, 2010)

become popular?  Just some thoughts I have had as of late.  My little sister bought me a whole pile of old photography books.  Some were old college books, some were portrait shooting tips, but most were just books of photography from TIME and similar sources.  Most of these books date from the 70's and 80's, so the images are from that era or well before.  As I turned every page, the images were fantastic, but I noticed that if a person posted one of these images on a forum for example.....it would be torn apart.  I mean the images look fantastic composition and subject wise but they were not the razor sharp images that you see online and in print these days.  

So, although these images were technically great and the TIME books were chaulked full of some images from the most respected photographers, why do we argue so much over what company has the sharpest lenses, or "I cannot wait for a mkII edition of this lens because its not sharp enough."  Why do we lust for ultra sharp images if that is only a small fraction of a photograph?

Is it a technology thing?  HD television, video, better print capabilities have us "trained" to expect ultra-sharp images?  

Just curious.......as I have only been shooting for a few short years now.  Anyone that has been in the hobby/profession long enough to see a change in this?


----------



## Montana (Feb 9, 2010)

I never shot film other than when I was a youngster shooting 110 film developed at Pamida.  LOL    Surely film isn't that much softer....is it?


----------



## lvcrtrs (Feb 9, 2010)

For me, it's just a preference. I used to say I like them to jump off the page and cut up my eyeballs (actually that's a quote I stole). But, as time goes on, just knowing I can get sharp pics many times if I want to makes me relax and start to enjoy backing it down a bit. Truely I'm finding that many times softer is more pleasing. I look at all the film pics on the walls that I have loved through the years and they are not tack sharp yet I don't take them down and replace them with newer photos. So, maybe for many it's just preference, maybe for others it's just 'cause they can, maybe for some they just haven't reached the place where they appreciate anything else.


----------



## Overread (Feb 9, 2010)

You forget that you are amungst nutters - addicts and those who should be locked up when you post on a photography forum  

Amateurs in any area of interest are often far more demanding than professionals and even more so than the average public when it comes to quality as seen in the end production of the hobby. Be it fine coin collections; model boats; photography or anything amateurs are the sort who will find problems even when there are no problems 


Also one has to accept that the pace of technology has advanced in both printing and in image capture. Those old images might only be softer because that was the limit of the mass production printing machines of the day and that a finer, highquality single print of one of those images might be dead sharp.
Further remember that digial images as seen on the computer are sharpened before you see them
eg: compare this
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4329917049_3397258cf6_b.jpg

to this:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4329917049_8d2dc77172_o.jpg

The first image is the resized (and sharpened) version from flickr and its a pleasing level of sharpness - now look at the second, the unoriginal unresized version. 

Thus "internet" level sharp is a whole new meaning as images are around 1/3 or small than their original size and sharpened once if not two or three times.


----------



## Joves (Feb 9, 2010)

Well film had grain which would give great definition or not. It is like noise at 800+ and hearing how noisy the images are. Apparently they never shot with shot with fast film.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 9, 2010)

There was a time when people purposely softened images... like the old B&W days in Hollywood.

Who knows, but I fall into that category that prefers razor sharp focus in most cases.  I want to see very detail... probably because as technology improves our demands increase.


----------



## PackingMyBags (Feb 9, 2010)

This cant be a serious question.


----------



## Montana (Feb 9, 2010)

inTempus said:


> There was a time when people purposely softened images... like the old B&W days in Hollywood.
> 
> Who knows, but I fall into that category that prefers razor sharp focus in most cases.  I want to see very detail... probably because as technology improves our demands increase.




This is the feeling I got after reading and looking at a lot of the books.  Most of the photos not only gave credit to the photographer, but also list the camera and lens used.  And many of these lenses are sought after today by those manual focus "alternative lens" users.  So they are capable of very sharp images.  

Still wanting to here from some older film users here..........


----------



## Derrel (Feb 9, 2010)

It started when digital capture became widely available and "good". In the 1980's, a larger image was an 8x10, often made by cropping an inch off of each end of a 35mm negative's native aspect ratio of 8x12 inches. Not many people except hard-core darkroom workers made 11x14 prints in the 1980s-1990s, except for serious landscape shooters and professionals. Many enthusiasts shot and projected color slides; those look great without needing any printing.

Beginning with, in my opinion, the Canon 10D's excellent 6MP image quality, the quality of ASA 100 35mm color negative and color slide film was surpassed; a friend and I who have been shooing for a reasonably long time (1973, 1979 starts) looked at the output from his new 10D shot under studio flash illumination. Since 1987 he had been a professional freelance nature photographer who shot Canon and used a lot of Fuji E-6 slide film. When he brought his 10D over, and he and I shot a couple of lengthy studio sessions with it, our first look at the ISO 100 JPEG image quality blew us away. He was ecstatic with the detail the camera produced; I still recall him zooming in on the eyebrow detail on his young son; all the way down to individual hairs, with basically zero objectionable noise or grain.

Once the EPSON 1280 print became a staple, amateurs and professionals alike were cranking out reasonably large prints at home. Inkjet printing with the 1270 and 1280 EPSON models was amazingly good--no enlarger alignment issues, no enlarger lens issues. Inkjet printing delivers a higher level of quality and consistency than almost any enlarger setup because enlarging lenses are not as good at the edges as they are at the center,and enlarger alignment is critical, and it is not a long-term given.

Earlier d-slr cameras produced images that "looked digital",and printers were on the whole not as capable as the EPSON 1270 and 1280 models. So, I guess it must have been around 2003 when the sharpness craze really took off--the combination of widely-available 6MP d-slr bodies and GOOD semi-large format printing made an 8x10 look puny compared to a large EPSON inkjet print. As d-slrs developed higher-resolution sensors and computer monitors grew larger and larger and larger prints became "accessible" without arms and a leg prices, larger images became the norm. And so did increased computer sharpening of images. AND, lenses became *better*. As in higher-resolution, flatter field, and just "better", with less chromatic aberration, lower flare, just "better". Nikon's 14-24 AF-S zoom is better than  almost any 35mm prime lens from 14 to 24mm--better resolution, higher contrastm,and lower flare than even Nikon,Zeiss, and Canon prime lenses that cost over $1000 each--from a ZOOM lens!

The same thing happened with the Corvette: it no longer has a 250 HP engine...it's now what? 600 HP? Lenses of the late 50's are no match, in most cases, for lenses of the 2010s. Printed images of the 70s and 80s was done on a 240 to 360 dpi halftone screen,so the Life books are not as high-rez as even a modern home inkjet printout. Everything today is.well......


----------



## Montana (Feb 9, 2010)

Overread said:


> You forget that you are amungst nutters - addicts and those who should be locked up when you post on a photography forum
> 
> Amateurs in any area of interest are often far more demanding than professionals and even more so than the average public when it comes to quality as seen in the end production of the hobby. Be it fine coin collections; model boats; photography or anything amateurs are the sort who will find problems even when there are no problems
> 
> ...



Yes overread, this is true.  But most of these images were taken by some of the best photographers of that era......so they should have been their own worst critic as well, and strived for the best.


----------



## Montana (Feb 9, 2010)

Rather than quote your post Derrel, I will just say thanks.  I was hoping some seasoned film shooters would chime in.  Thanks for the info.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 9, 2010)

Montana said:


> become popular?  Just some thoughts I have had as of late.  My little sister bought me a whole pile of old photography books.  Some were old college books, some were portrait shooting tips, but most were just books of photography from TIME and similar sources.  Most of these books date from the 70's and 80's, so the images are from that era or well before.  As I turned every page, the images were fantastic, but I noticed that if a person posted one of these images on a forum for example.....it would be torn apart.  I mean the images look fantastic composition and subject wise but they were not the razor sharp images that you see online and in print these days.
> 
> So, although these images were technically great and the TIME books were chaulked full of some images from the most respected photographers, why do we argue so much over what company has the sharpest lenses, or "I cannot wait for a mkII edition of this lens because its not sharp enough."  Why do we lust for ultra sharp images if that is only a small fraction of a photograph?
> 
> ...



Depending on the era, AF might not have existed yet, or it may have, but it wasn't practical to have. So alot of photojournalism may have had oof pictures. but film is not soft. lower speed slide films are very sharp, and the larger the format, the more detail you got.


Absolutle sharpness i don't think has ever been a craze, the people looking for that have always existed. Take ansel adams for example, he pretty much never shot anything smaller than 4x5 for his serious work, and you can't tell me that his pictures are soft. 

I'm guessing you've never seen a tintype or daguerreotype, you want sharp, THAT'S sharp.


----------



## Montana (Feb 9, 2010)

Never thought of the autofocus issues/lack of aspect Switch.  Thanks.


----------



## ann (Feb 9, 2010)

you also have printing issues within the books and magazine themselves. It wasn't terrific, which certainly effected some of these comments. 

seeing an orginal print vs something in a poorly printed book was and still are miles apart.

And yes, being sharp was just as important to many then as now; however, there was a period when out of focus was vogue, but thank heavens *or so i  hope) this trend is gone,.


----------



## dxqcanada (Feb 9, 2010)

Too many photographers are technocrats ... Digital shooters more than film, and I think because of the technological level of the equipment available today.

It does not matter if it is sharp as hell or 50 gigapixels ... 

All of my favorite images are from pre-Digital era.
I don't care if they are technically perfect ... that does not make a great image.


----------



## Mulewings~ (Feb 9, 2010)

To look at some of the classics you can see some incredible photos called 100 Photographs that Changed the World by Life Magazine....

Sharp?  Some are, Powerful...oh yeah...

Photography will continue to change and evolve.


----------



## usayit (Feb 9, 2010)

Digital age == Pixel Peeper age


----------



## Crazydad (Feb 9, 2010)

I think part of it may also be that, for the hobbyist, sharpness is one aspect that is easy to control. With 51 point AF systems and the advances in lens making there is no reason for a picture to not be sharp - unless the photographer wants it soft.

Consistently good composition on the other hand, requires a lot more work and is much harder to achieve.  One look at my photos will tell you I have a long way to go in that area, but with the right equipment a tack sharp image is fairly easy. It may not be interesting, but it would be sharp.


----------



## molested_cow (Feb 9, 2010)

On another forum there was a tread asking people what in a photograph is the most important to them. Many said "sharpness".

I then realized that it seems depth of field has become an enemy to many photographers, mostly digital.

So I started a thread asking if you are a technologist or artist. The thread wasn't too popular.

I think this is like the difference between people who like vinyl VS HD digital audio. With the so-called analog sound, it's the music that lovers appreciate. However with digital audio lovers, it's often the quality of the sound they are after.

In photography, I cannot make a clear cut. If I am shooting nature, I'd like my images to be sharp. If I am doing street shots and portraits, then I want to play with depth of field. Either way, I don't make judgment based on the technicality of the photography. I care most about the story the photograph conveys. Story is something no technology can foster. It's about the right moment with the right eye using the right way to present it. There's no rule that defines how it should be done.

I loves my F1.2 50mm because it can give me somewhat soft photos when I turn it to the largest aperture. Since I mostly use it for cultural themed photographs, it's perfect.

I just think that when images get too sharp, it feel very impersonal, almost strange, because that's not how your brain reads images presented by your eyes. In many ways, film, due to current scanning technology, helps to tone down the sharpness. It feels much more real and satisfying. It's the subject that is talking to me, not the pixels.

For the most part when I show my photos to friends who don't know how I take my photos, they never thought they are looking at scanned negatives. They are usually surprised when I tell them so. My point is, I don't really care if they can tell by looking at the images. All I care about is if they received the messages that I tried to convey through the photographs.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 10, 2010)

Sharpness is highly overrated.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 10, 2010)

One word: Marketing. 

Sharpness became very relevant when one camera produced sharper images than the other and some clever company decided to shout that from the rooftops. This is the same for a lot of things. Megapixels! How many people here have heard a comment that someone's point and shoot is better than your DSLR because it has more megapixels?

Marketing dictates people's ideas. Just look at the fashion industry. It is they who decide what colour consumers think look good. Just when did those grandpa pants with cross hatch patterns become popular amongst teenagers anyway?

Why do a lot of girls think that men won't love them if they don't have the body-fat of a 12 year old Nigerian boy?
Why do people munch tablets day and night trying to be healthy while avoiding eating apples?

I think that as soon as camera manufacturers put soft focus software filters into their standard effect options in DSLRs and Point and Shoots and advertise that fact, soft will be the new sharp. 

It's all about marketing.



molested_cow said:


> I think this is like the difference between people who like vinyl VS HD digital audio. With the so-called analog sound, it's the music that lovers appreciate. However with digital audio lovers, it's often the quality of the sound they are after.



As someone with both a large vinyl and CD collection I have a theory on this. Digital gave us instant access to a point on the album. How many times have you had someone grab their iPod and say "hey listen to this bit..." This just isn't done on vinyl because changing track mid record becomes a complete event in itself. 

As such vinyl lovers tend listen to albums, where as MP3 lovers tend to listen to ... "bits". At least that's my observation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 10, 2010)

Crazydad said:


> I think part of it may also be that, for the hobbyist, sharpness is one aspect that is easy to control. With 51 point AF systems and the advances in lens making there is no reason for a picture to not be sharp - unless the photographer wants it soft.
> 
> Consistently good composition on the other hand, requires a lot more work and is much harder to achieve.  One look at my photos will tell you I have a long way to go in that area, but with the right equipment a tack sharp image is fairly easy. It may not be interesting, but it would be sharp.



I think that Crazydad has touched upon the important issue - sharpness is a quasi-value that is easy to measure.  Photography is very difficult; it is hard to produce pictures that are 'meaningful' or have an impact.  It is equally hard for a viewer to say why she or he likes or is impressed by an image. So for both the shooter and the viewer, sharpness becomes a metric that is relatively easily attained - and it takes only some skill and not any real talent.

I know several people who, after years of shooting SLR level pictures, have switched to 4 x 5 and big tripods so they can get ultra-sharp pictures with perfect control of DOF and the pictures are exactly that but they are also intensely boring.

If you have ever seen a large Ansel Adams exhibition you can see for yourself that the pictures are generally very sharp, perfectly exposed, with meticulous control of the DOF and, in the main, terrifically boring. 

OTOH, street shooters can often produce the most exciting images and the issues of sharpness and dof control are much less important because the image itself is exciting and stirs the emotion and the viewer doesn't have to sink back on technical issues to decide the goodness or worth of the image.

Lew


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2010)

Montana said:


> I never shot film other than when I was a youngster shooting 110 film developed at Pamida.  LOL    Surely film isn't that much softer....is it?




I you look at enough old B+W shots you will see plenty that are very sharp Henry Cartier Bresson used to shoot some razor sharp and some with blur 
I shot this Ilford HP5 pushed to ISO1600 and i think it is quite sharp


----------



## ottor (Feb 10, 2010)

I think its a combination of the Internet (Forums) and the Digital age where everyones a photographer these days Am I wrong, or was the main focus  of the neat older (70s) photographs mostly the composition and subject matter of the picture? 

Everyone remembers that photograph of the poor little naked burned girl running away from a Viet Nam village  If there were Internet Forums back then, I couldnt image Ansel Adams sitting down and posting away _Nice bokeh but meh, youre horizons crooked .._

Weve all become critics  because we can be now In my opinion, a sharper picture is more pleasing to view (with many exceptions) and since we can now make public comments on it, .. we tend to do so. Sharpness is an easy to see feature, even at the most beginner level, and that allows anyone to make a comment.. - Its just the advanced technology, and the ability to share our opinions thats changed

Of course, due to inflation, my .02 cents aren't worth anything these days either....


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 10, 2010)

No, no... Leica users have been blathering about sharpness since the 50s, and taking boring pictures. Sharpness is great and important, except for when it isn't. I do agree though that the hobbyist demands sharpness as some kind of attainable visible metric. 

Having said that, you're bound for a frosty Thanksgiving if you take a tack-sharp picture of your mother-in-law. A certain softness is always a good idea when shooting people over the age of 28.


----------



## ottor (Feb 10, 2010)

Iron Flatline said:


> Having said that, you're bound for a frosty Thanksgiving if you take a tack-sharp picture of your mother-in-law. A certain softness is always a good idea when shooting people over the age of 28.


 
OK ........ made my day!  :lmao:    

However ................................   so true!


----------



## Joves (Feb 10, 2010)

Iron Flatline said:


> Having said that, you're bound for a frosty Thanksgiving if you take a tack-sharp picture of your mother-in-law. A certain softness is always a good idea when shooting people over the age of 28.


 
 Yeah no kidding! I had a woman I know tell me I was a bad photographer because it was too sharp. Funny how capturing an image of someone will show things you dont see in the mirror. Or dont want to see.


----------



## inTempus (Feb 10, 2010)

ottor said:


> Everyone remembers that photograph of the poor little naked burned girl running away from a Viet Nam village  If there were Internet Forums back then, I couldnt image Ansel Adams sitting down and posting away _Nice bokeh but meh, youre horizons crooked .._


The horizon wasn't crooked, I just Googled it.  Jesh, give the photog a little credit.  

But it is soft... I mean really soft.  I don't think it's as powerful as it could be if it were razor sharp (and in color).


----------



## gsgary (Feb 10, 2010)

inTempus said:


> ottor said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone remembers that photograph of the poor little naked burned girl running away from a Viet Nam village  If there were Internet Forums back then, I couldnt image Ansel Adams sitting down and posting away _Nice bokeh but meh, youre horizons crooked .._
> ...




I think you are missing something, he probably had Tri-X film in his camera which is ISO400 he can't just bump up the iso to get a higher shutter speed, well he could but all the shots before would be processed at the wrong speed


----------



## icassell (Feb 10, 2010)

inTempus said:


> There was a time when people purposely softened images... like the old B&W days in Hollywood.
> 
> Who knows, but I fall into that category that prefers razor sharp focus in most cases.  I want to see very detail... probably because as technology improves our demands increase.



Who else remembers putting vaseline on your UV filter for a softening effect?


----------



## icassell (Feb 10, 2010)

The_Traveler said:


> If you have ever seen a large Ansel Adams exhibition you can see for yourself that the pictures are generally very sharp, perfectly exposed, with meticulous control of the DOF and, in the main, terrifically boring.



Having just gone to an Ansel Adams show at the Phoenix Art Museum last weekend (about the 5th show of his that I've seen), I would take exception to your "boring" comment.  I find very little of his exhibited work boring.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Feb 10, 2010)

"When did razor sharp images..... become popular?"

A long time ago. Plenty of photographers shot Kodachrome 25 which was a very sharp film. Most of us tried to use the slowest film possible to minimize the grain which, in film, cannot be totally eradicated. Some situations call for faster films and the grain starts to show. And grain, compared to digital images with no noise can give the impression of a softer image.

But the biggest progress has been made, imho, in the printing industry. Quality art books were the realm of a few publishing companies. Most of what was available as art books was not very good. Digital has changed that to a certain degree.

But, as someone suggested, you need to look at actual prints to see actual sharpness. One of the things that has surprised me the most here on TPF is how few people actually seem to go to museums and galleries. Film photography was obvioulsy not meant to be viewed on a computer monitor and, to be honest, even in the age of digital I think it still is not. Think of the number of people complaining that their images got soft after going through their images hosting sites. Thinks also of the number of cheap monitors out there.

AF and the newfangled multi-point focusing systems certainly have nothing to do with the sharpness. If you couldn't focus your camera in the age of manual, you would not have gotten very far as a photog.

DOF has nothing to do with sharpness either. The area of the image that is in focus is either in focus or not. And the comparison to vinyl lovers is not very good. Music lovers love music whether it is digital or analog. People with an ear can make the difference between digital and analog. There are snobs everywhere so they are present in the music world and they should just be ignored. But to say that digital music lovers love the quality is a joke: MP3s are about the same quality as my cassettes and that is what most people listen to 

To get back to sharpness, there has been quite a bit of worrying in the TV and movie world about HD because of the extreme sharpness. And a recent self portrait post by O|||||||O reminded me of this when someone mentioned his pores. Do I really want to see his pores? I remember an article about the porn industry being quite worried about all this sharpness...

I totally believe that the sharpness thing is an amateur problem. As mentioned by others here, it is one thing that is easy to grasp so we want sharpness when we have no or little idea of the rest of photography. I am with The_Traveler on Ansel Adams. Perfectly exposed, perfectly sharp, perfectly boring. I can look at one or two of his images but I would never take the time to visit a show. Someone once offered me a couple of his prints as payment for a job and, to his utter amazement, I said no.

ottor mention of horizon is the exact same, imo. I had never heard so many people totally obsessed with horizon lines until I joined this place. I am no fan of tilted photos for no reasonbut a slightly off horizon line, I would not even notice most of the time.

Another that has been mentioned is that they were time when softness was the desired thing. And, yes icassell, I used the vaseline trick myself a few times. And I'm sorry I also find Adams boring. To each his own.

Very interesting thread.


----------



## icassell (Feb 10, 2010)

c.cloudwalker said:


> And I'm sorry I also find Adams boring. To each his own.
> 
> .




Not a problem.  As you say, to each his own. 


I had forgotten about vaseline until this thread came up.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 10, 2010)

:thumbup:



c.cloudwalker said:


> To get back to sharpness, there has been quite a bit of worrying in the TV and movie world about HD because of the extreme sharpness. And a recent self portrait post by O|||||||O reminded me of this when someone mentioned his pores. Do I really want to see his pores? I remember an article about the porn industry being quite worried about all this sharpness...





I'm offended that you don't want to see my pores.  

To be honest, unless I shot with a pinhole camera, it would have been unavoidable in that particular case.
(Shooting wide open *might* have made my pores out of focus though...  Not sure, didn't try it.)

---


I do like sharp pictures, but they don't have to be razor sharp for me.

Focus is much more important than sharpness to me.

Hey, I bought the Canon 135mm Soft Focus lens (no way I could afford the other (L) 135mm at the time...),  and I actually use the soft focus features of it.
(Pretty much just spherical aberration on command.)

That lens probably is the least used on in my bag, but I still do use it.  (BTW - It's not always soft focus, it can take sharp pictures too.)

Now, what were you saying about porn?  Let's talk about that.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 11, 2010)

There is another difference that people forget to mention - razor-sharp focus in color film was impossible because the different color emulsions laid in different planes on the celluloid. On a micro-meter level your reds were sharp but the rest might have been minimally soft... that is virtually impossible to emulate with digital.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 11, 2010)

LOL, just was forwarded this link by another photographer as an example of work she really loves. 

Anna Wolf, who's self-esteemed would be crushed into a fine powder by some of the photographers here (many of whom surprisingly never post their own images...)

Cropping choices, rule-of-thirds, flare, fill light, sharpness.... Wonderful.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Feb 11, 2010)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL, just was forwarded this link by another photographer as an example of work she really loves.
> 
> Anna Wolf, who's self-esteemed would be crushed into a fine powder by some of the photographers here (many of whom surprisingly never post their own images...)
> 
> Cropping choices, rule-of-thirds, flare, fill light, sharpness.... Wonderful.



That stuff very much works for me too. Some of the stuff I most enjoy looking at currently comes from joannablu across at flickr. Much like Anna Wolf, her stuff breaks every rule going, if it ever even knew them. Subject matter and sense of place dominate in all aspects of her work, technicalities just being a means to an end.

For my own work, it feels trapped in the world of the engineer, with no real spirit or meaning to it. I'm trying to break that down more these days, but there's a long way to go.

Did you get the PM btw Yoram?


----------



## Iron Flatline (Feb 11, 2010)

I did brother, VERY sorry for not responding. The place looks wonderful, think I'll try it and report upon my return.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Feb 11, 2010)

lol, this should be asked over at dpreview....


i bet that's where the "sharpness is the most critical aspect" comment came from, because that's the only thing anyone there cares about. It could be a picture of the front of a mcdonalds, and if it's perfectly sharp from a D3x and 14-24, than it's automatically elevated to the highest ranks. 

You want to see sh*t pictures, look at the DPReview forums.. 

but it's OK, they're SHARP! IT'S GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY, the self portraits shot on the D3x, 24-70, and the digitally inserted steaming pool they're standing in, GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY!


----------



## inTempus (Feb 11, 2010)

Iron Flatline said:


> LOL, just was forwarded this link by another photographer as an example of work she really loves.
> 
> Anna Wolf, who's self-esteemed would be crushed into a fine powder by some of the photographers here (many of whom surprisingly never post their own images...)
> 
> Cropping choices, rule-of-thirds, flare, fill light, sharpness.... Wonderful.


I like many of those shots too.  Great feeling to many of them.


----------



## hower610 (Feb 21, 2010)

dxqcanada said:


> I don't care if they are technically perfect ... that does not make a great image.



Best statement I have seen in a while  :thumbup:


----------



## thoughtcryme (Feb 22, 2010)

I think photographers today also put so much emphasis on the equipment they use, that an image that could be seen as "soft" would mean they aren't living up to the capabilities of the expensive equipment they own.
DSLR's and assorted lenses, lights, lighting equipment, these things have become material possessions now.
Digital imaging has brought photography into the instant gratification realm.
It used to be that you made your shots using the right tool for the job, then there was a wait for the lab to process your film, or if you had access to a darkroom it took you a little time to see your results.
Now that it's all digital for the most part, you don't have to plan your shots so much.
If a shot is a little too soft for your liking, unsharp mask it or high pass it and it's good.
Many times you see those razor sharp images on one of the many social networking sites.
Knowing it's gonna be processed once you upload it, you sharpen it beforehand because some of those sites really demolish the photo.
And as has been mentioned, a photo looks alot sharper when it's cut down to a 1/3 of it's original size.
Just toggle between 'actual pixels' and 'fit to screen' in PS to see that in action.

Those photos by Anna Wolf are really great!
Just scrolling through her page, I've never seen a photo on this forum that rivals her better shots.
I mean no offense by that, there are many great photos here by many people.

But anyone who goes to an internet forum and allows the people there to influence their work by virtue of personal opinion, or their attitude toward their work, is a fool.
You should know what you want from your work.
And if this forum can help you get that, great.
But you can't let people here tell you what you should want, or make you want more or less from your own work.


----------



## Early (Feb 26, 2010)

I didn't get into photography until the late 70's, and I don't ever remember sharpness not being an issue.  Sure, portrait photographers would sometimes opt for some softness, specifically for older women, or from aesthetic reason.  There were even lenses made for that, or the would grease up a filter for the purpose.  

As far as unsharp images winding up in print, I'm sure the editors selected the sharpest images from a selection as long as the photo met other criteria.

If we're seeing sharper images today, and I'm not convinced that we are, it could be that the quality of lenses has gotten better, especially zooms.  It's also probable that getting the image onto the printed page has become better technically.


----------



## Hamtastic (Mar 9, 2010)

Sharp images have always been popular.  It's easy enough to go to an art museum and see many examples of pre-film process photographs that are razor sharp, as well as lot's of sharp film photographs.

Sharpness and over saturated color are like sweets for the eyes.  Most people like it in general, but some get tired of it and lose their sweet-tooth, while others never do.  I like sharp, but my tastes have grown to appreciate other flavors too.  Sometimes a sharp image is a requirement.  Sometimes it's optional.

Look up the pictorialist photographers.  They felt that a sharp photograph indicated too much of the device to be art.  The F/64 Group (1930s ?) were some of the first to push the idea that sharp, in focus photos could be fine art.  It caught on pretty quick, and pretty soon 99.9% of conversations about photography were about sharpness.  

_"Im always amused by the idea that certain  people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste  for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for  perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe  Ioeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other  generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in  soft-focus effects." -Henri Cartier Bressonhttp://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=98&name=Cartier-Bresson,Henri_


----------



## patrickt (Mar 9, 2010)

Edward Weston did a portrait of President Orozco of Mexico. The portrait is famous and well-regarded. If is a tad blurred. It was late in the afternoon, the lens was very slow, and there was a bit of movement. Edward Weston's comment, when asked about this, that the photo was "practically satisfactory". I appreciate his attitude. A few years ago I saw an exhibit with this photo. Yes, it was a bit blurred. It couldn't be enlarge without losing what it had. But, it was "practically satisfactory."

Would Edward Weston have preferred a tack sharp print. Of course. But, yuo can't always get it. It is a goal to shoot for. Any blurring should be intentional.


----------



## Fusion (Mar 21, 2010)

You could put a simple definition of a good picture as one that is sharp, has good color and accurate exposure, but a picture is much more than the sum of these things. Look at the work of Robert Capa and his shots of the D-Day landing in 1943, none are sharp, none are perfect but they are brilliant photographs in my opinion. Look at the work of Ansell Adams, sharp superbly exposed images, the total opposite to Capa but both produced great images..

A good picture for me need elements within it that speak to me and tell a story, sharpness yes but not totally required depending on the image. If it provokes a emotional gut reaction, horror, love, hate, then its a good picture of that type. I can also appreciate the type of work produced by the great such as Adams which are true works of artistry.

Some of the great portrait photographer like Josef Karsh, Helmut Newton and Weston produced magnificent works.


----------



## kkamin (Mar 24, 2010)

Doesn't film have an inherent softness (not oof) since you are exposing silver molecules that are organically shaped and 'randomly' arranged?  And digital is a firmly defined matrix of square pixels.  I started when film was still king and shot on a variety of formats.

Now with digital, when I shoot portraits, I spend a considerable time retouching skin, in order to bring it back to the impression it gives in reality, if you know what I mean.  I don't normally stare at people faces like an archeologist staring at a fossil.  High resolution digital picks up every little imperfection and creates an unflattering appearance to skin in most circumstances.  With film, the tinier imperfections would be 'toned down'.

I like sharp images but I see it as more work now in post to reduce the distractions and simplify the image to its intent.


----------



## LearnMyShot (Mar 24, 2010)

Thanks for you thoughts....I grew up with images that were all about sharp from here to the moon...and that was a style in the seventies .....then some one thought of doing stills like fashion images....and the short focus trend took off...and it is beautiful, but it doesn't mean it is the only focus in photoghaphy..a great image is just that....the visual and impact are everything, no matter where the depth of field is located..don't be controlled by the fad....trust your feelings.


----------



## ArtphotoasiA (Mar 27, 2010)

Finally a camera is just a box with a hole!



Photographer is the creator....  sharpen or not...


----------



## Dominantly (Mar 27, 2010)

When did all this hype come about with owning a car with air bags? Or ABS? What the heck is a crumple zone and why do I have it in my vehicle?

Technology, as it progresses, so do the demands. You tell me you can offer me 12.3 megapixels, I ask "why not 15"?

I believe as we advance with our technology, so does our desire to obtain what our eyes see as perfect photographs. When I look around my room, I see with a good amount of clarity, objects are sharp, contrast is strong, etc. What I don't see is a soft image. You may, and if so, that's called cataracts; get them checked out.

I would say quite a few people these days are trying to recreate images as they are seen in front of them. The complexity of the human eye and it's capability are what the companies are trying to recreate with imaging equipment.


----------



## maris (Mar 29, 2010)

When did razor sharp images





Montana said:


> become popular?



7th of January, 1839 with the announcement by Francois Arago to the Academie Francaise of the invention of the Daguerrotype. The Daguerrotype is the sharpest photographic process known because it uses a layer of silver halide on silver metal. There is no intra-emulsion light scatter and the grain is of molecular dimensions. What an irony! The sharpest process, and the least convenient and most deadly, was invented first.


----------



## kkamin (Mar 29, 2010)

maris said:


> When did razor sharp images
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you haven't seen one before, I encourage you to go see one at an art museum.  They are gorgeous.


----------



## mighe79 (Apr 2, 2010)

In film days photographers like Avedon, Penn, Newton, Horst, were chosing a tipe of film that would be more flattering for portraits, for example. Giving a low acutance, it would remove imperfection of skin, keeping the overall sharpenss quite "accetable".
It is a matter of trend I guess ... and, yes, as said above, most photographers nowadays ar techartists or gear geeks. 
There is absolutely no need of extra sharp images, with every little tiny wee detail in a picture that doesn't require that, such as scientific photography, forensic, or microphotography.
Most ppl forget about the content of a picture and concentrate way too much on the sharpness, in my opinion. At the end of the day the photographs that became iconic, are so beause of their originality, content and great creativity ... certainly not for their sharpness.


----------



## jameshilton (Apr 2, 2010)

dxqcanada said:


> Too many photographers are technocrats ... Digital shooters more than film, and I think because of the technological level of the equipment available today.
> 
> It does not matter if it is sharp as hell or 50 gigapixels ...
> 
> ...



Hi, first time post here, so hello everyone.

I agree, I see a lot of people who are alas more interested the specifications of what their DSLR cameras can do, than actually getting out and taking great photos. This happens in the video world too, but possibly to a larger extent.

There is a lot more to an image that it just being well exposed and sharp. Much more important are composition and having something that will provoke a thought or reaction from the viewer. A sharp well exposed photo of a test chart won't be of much interest to most members of the public, but a photo of a tragic scene for example is more likely to be, regardless of it being pin sharp or slightly soft.

Ironically these days I find I'm less interested in taking sharp images, but rather love taking photos that try and capture movement, so have lots of blur in them and are often slightly out of focus as a result. I often feel like I am living in the past a bit though![FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]


----------



## bif (Apr 3, 2010)

Well, I "cut my teeth" on Plus-x and Tri-x developed in D-76 and then in the late '60s and early '70s worked in medium format using Ilford films develeped in Acufine.  

I worshipped at the altar of SHARPNESS.  

Kodachrome 25 projected on an 80" screen looked incredibly sharp when I wanted it that way.

When I retired from the air force in 1978 and opened a small studio business I really appreciated the sharpness that resulted from the 80mm Planar on 'Blads and the excellent lenses for the Mamiya RB-67.  16x20 color portrait prints from good labs pleased customers when crisp and sharp, and when appropriate when a bit diffuse (shot with the Mamiya 150mm Soft Focus Lens).  

Eventually I began to photograph even men with a very subtle degree of diffusion; I had a set of Cokin diffusion filters that gave me a graduated range of 5 strengths ranging from so subtle you couldn't even see it but women loved how their husbands looked to "don't even try to focus through this one".  I seemed to have just the right degree for each person who sat down in front of the camera.

That was a fun era to photograph folks.  When it was time for a change I went to work as a civilian staffer at an air force training base and everything had to be crisp and sharp again, and as we changed over from conventional film wet process photography to all digital, the camera gear wasn't great at first.  1.5MP cameras with awful moire and very weak medium greens (army green uniforms often came out gray/bluish when skin tones were right.  

The next generation of camera we got were better on color but I still had to fight for sharpness, pulling 8x10 portrait prints that looked good from a 1.5MP imager was tough sometimes.  And every one of our cameras seemed to have a different color "personality".  I remember one being so YELLOW no one could work with its images.

We have it great these days.  The Canon 7D I've had since October has more features crammed into it than I ever imagined a camera could have, the Canon Rebels I've had since retiring have all had excellent color.  

I've rambled a lot, but still remember being amazed at how sharp a print from an Ilford film negative shot with a Hasselblad with 80mm Planar could be, and how amazingly crisp things looked the first time I put a new 17-40mm f4 L series on the 7D and simply looked through the viewfinder.

But I still need to find a PhotoShop workflow that gets me the same soft dreamy look I used to get in the studio with the Mamiya Soft Focus Lens and with the Cokin diffusion filters I used.


----------



## bif (Apr 3, 2010)

icassell said:


> Who else remembers putting vaseline on your UV filter for a softening effect?



There was a better and safer way.  Bill Stockwell, in his wedding seminars used to tell about the guy who heard about that technique and tried it.

Then wanted to know how to get all the vaseline off his lens.  Seems he didn't pay attention to the UV filter part.

So Bill Stockwell showed a technique using an eyeglass lens cleaner cartridge (do they even sell these anymore?), like a felt tip lens cleaning fluid dispenser.  You "painted" the wet around the outside part of the UV filter and took your picture while still wet.

For a more permanent effect you could use clear nail polish on a UV filter leaving the center portion clear.  Best shot with aperture wide open.  I used this for a few shots of the bride, bride & groom at weddings for years.

Hadn't thought about that for years.


----------



## kkamin (Apr 3, 2010)

Bif, thanks for sharing your experiences.  It is great to hear these histories and put things in perspective.


----------

