A Call to Overthrow the Cult of Sharpness!

[Murph]

I tend to subscribe to the f/64 ideal of utter total sharpness in a photograph. Blurry bothers me for some reason.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Murph

I tend to subscribe to the f/64 ideal of utter total sharpness in a photograph. Blurry bothers me for some reason.

How do you explain Anslel Adams use of blur in "Early Morning, Merced River Canyon?" Also his burning it the corners to bring up the center of the images?

[Detonate]

The water is not blurred due to the lens, which was what your original post was about.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by evil4blue

Hey, this is the open forum, and we have the luxury of free speech. Complain all you want, but I stand by what I said and have the right to complain about the complaints.

...

If Ansel Adams didn't care about sharpness, he wouldn't have used f/64 for his landscapes.

Only free speech up to the point of posting a link to Robert Mapplethorpe's most controverisal work.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Detonate

The water is not blurred due to the lens, which was what your original post was about.

True but it is a counter example of everything must be "sharp."

[evil4blue]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

How do you explain Anslel Adams use of blur in "Early Morning, Merced River Canyon?" Also his burning it the corners to bring up the center of the images?

Adams started with the sharpest/most detailed photo his equiptment could muster then he could selectively blur and dodge/burn in the dark room.

I think if Adams could have taken his photos digitally, I think he would, because he was all about the end product and the PP'ing to get him there. He would have welcomed photoshop with open arms.

[Detonate]

What do I care what Adams does. Is he now the end all be all? Does he dictate MY photography?

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by Detonate

What do I care what Adams does. Is he now the end all be all? Does he dictate MY photography?

It helps to know the "rules" before you start breaking them. All art is derivative of past and present genres. This is why one studies art history in art school. If we are to truly understand our photography we must understand why and how others worked. Particulary, why they are considered important and what they did, what rules they learned, what rules they broke and what rules they created.

These are things we need to know to critique our own work as well as others.

[brad]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

Only free speech up to the point of posting a link to Robert Mapplethorpe's most controverisal work.

You just had to take a cheap shot, didn't you. Man, you can be a self centered pompous ass sometimes.

[evil4blue]

Originally Posted by brad

You just had to take a cheap shot, didn't you. Man, you can be a self centered pompous ass sometimes.

Sometimes, it's just not worth it.

[Murph]

While Ansel Adams did have blur it was due to the low shutter speed, but if you look at the rest of the photograph it is almost sharp enough to cut yourself on. Perhaps you should read about the reason Group f/64 came about in response to the soft focus, blurry "art" photos of the time. It was in reaction to them. Read Beaumont Newhall's THE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY.

[Abel]

ok

if we cant have a civil discussion here then the thread will be closed...

[Jim Victory]

Originally Posted by Detonate

On the same note, I highly doubt that those mentioned in the orignal post would argue that sharpness is the end all be all to making a photograph. Not once have I EVER heard someone say sharpness was the only thing that matters, or even that sharpness is more important than composition.

They are just people who strive to get the best performance out of their gear. Not unlike a gear head juicing every last bit of horse power out of their Hemi, or a video game nut trying to get every FPS out of their favorite game. And why should I be concerned if they do?

Basically, when you biggest concern becomes someone else's take on their photography instead of your own, take two steps back and analye why YOU have the problem, instead of trying to analyze them.

Ditto!

Sharpness has its place but I rather refer to it as detail and resolution. Most of you that are siding with John shoot people or art subjects and sharpness is not a driving element of your photography.

Wildlife photography and to some extent sports require a detailed subject, unless your emphasing motion with blur. Sharpness can come in handy in showing the detail of the feathers of a bird or fur of an animal.

Although Gordon seems to think a macro of a flower doesn't warrant consideration, sharpness is important in showing the detail of its composition as is blurring would be to give it a dreamy look artistically. It brings us close up to natures beauty that we might not recognize if not presented in this manner.

Your equipment should be capable of producing sharp pictures. It is up to you, as a photographer, to decide if it is appropriate to use that sharpness in your composition or not.For me exposure is the most important element followed by composition with sharpness being a given.

When I'm getting ready to take a shot the first thing I look at is the exposure then I frame or compose and take the shot. I leave the sharpness up to my AF being locked and the ability of my equipment. To me it is not really a part of the photographic expression but rather a result of the ability of my equipment to produce sharpness.

[AlexMorse]

Originally Posted by johnastovall

It helps to know the "rules" before you start breaking them. All art is derivative of past and present genres. This is why one studies art history in art school. If we are to truly understand our photography we must understand why and how others worked. Particulary, why they are considered important and what they did, what rules they learned, what rules they broke and what rules they created.

I completely disagree with this statement. It's simply not true.

You don't need to know the works of previous photographers to create good images. Is it valuable to know about them? Yes! Can it help you improve your own skill? Yes! Is it relevant to your work? Not necessarily.

Of course there's a lot of subjectivity when it comes to art; one person's aesthetic values are not the same as the next. And it's true that everything is derivative--but not of previous art. Everything is derivative of our own senses and imagination. That can include previous art, but doesn't need to.

I do think history is important, but it's not the be all end all. Nor is it a measuring stick for the present, or a how-to guide.

[johnastovall]

I've noted an interesting demography to this thread. Not one post by any of the Ladies of TPF.

Interesting?