Why are people so obsessed...

I totally agree Gena. If the picture isn't taken with a 10x8 plate camera using poles down the back of the subject's shirts to keep them still for the required 3 seconds, then it simply isn't a portrait.

I assume that's what you use Gena?

An artistic quality such as softness has no technical merit in proving resolution of detail. Except for the lighting and being hand held most entry level point and shoot cameras could produce identical effects. If it can't be sharp why spend excessively?

20/20 vision is naturally sharp. Do people care if they will have sharp vision after laser eye surgery? I think so.

All youngsters who need glasses at an early age don't notice until tested.
The same goes for people who have never owned a sharp camera and lens.
Until you have one you don't know any better.

There are people out there who believe all cameras are the same because they take pictures and digital can never be better than film. You want to be part of that crowd?

Waldo Nell said:

... with sharpness? In almost every second thread I read on this
site people are complaining that lens X on camera Y does not yield
per pixel perfect sharpness.

Many subjects benefit from non-sharp images, like this (soft) one I
took with my new 50mm F1.2 @ F1.2, 1/40s, ISO 400 hand held on my
1Ds3:



The 50 F1.2 lens is IMO much less sharp than my old 50mm F1.4 I
replaced it with. But I am so happy with the new lens because of the
beautiful bokeh, the wide aperture allowing for much more natural
hand held, natural light shots and the colours it produces...

One happy 50mm F1.2 owner here...
--
Waldo Nell

Click to expand...

--
Torch

Nope. I was replying to:

"poor picture, soft, poorly lit, focused and composed. "

That addressed 4 different issues, of which only one is about sharpness. It was a "grab the moment" shot. Never said it is a studio shot going to make National Geographic's front page. I just said I liked it.

--
Waldo Nell

I like it too, Waldo.

Congrats for catching the moment, that's the important thing, not the MTF of the pic.
--
**-**-**-**-**
Canon EOS Love View
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pingpanic
Excuse my so-so english

Torch said:

An artistic quality such as softness has no technical merit in
proving resolution of detail.

Torch

Click to expand...

True. And a technical quality such as sharpness has no artistic merit in proving presentation of light.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about money
Photographers worry about light

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

ChrisDM said:

Torch said:

An artistic quality such as softness has no technical merit in
proving resolution of detail.

Torch

Click to expand...

True. And a technical quality such as sharpness has no artistic merit
in proving presentation of light.

One of my favorite quotes on the subject:

Amateurs worry about sharpness
Professionals worry about money
Photographers worry about light

Click to expand...

says who?

it's more photographers worry about sharpness and light.

both the equipement, technique and light are important to get a good photo.

Also pro worry quite a bit about sharpness as opposite to your claim because one cannot sell an unsharp photo, unless they print very small and sharpen up.

most pro use a tripod for best results..most serious photographers also use a tripod..and it's not for the look of it.

ChrisDM said:

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

Daniella said:

says who?

it's more photographers worry about sharpness and light.

Click to expand...

Yes, but not in that order...

Daniella68313 said:

both the equipement, technique and light are important to get a good
photo.

Click to expand...

Once again, not in the correct order. It would be Light, technique, and then equipment, even though most on this forum would like it in the opposite order.

Daniella68313 said:

Also pro worry quite a bit about sharpness as opposite to your claim
because one cannot sell an unsharp photo, unless they print very
small and sharpen up.

Click to expand...

You should have seen the gallery displays at the last Palm Springs International Photo Festival. Blurred abstracts, blown highlights, lost shadows, most beautiful and selling for thousands per print.... Another example is Galen Rowell, probably the second most recognized landscape photographer in the world. Due to his extreme mountaineering to get his most remarkable shots, a tripod/cable release etc were not feasible. None of his shots are particularly sharp, but many are particularly stunning. You can also find examples in any National Geographic magazine. You'll find it is the light, subject and composition that drives the most dynamic photographs. And with those elements in place, sharpness isn't even a requirement!

Daniella68313 said:

most pro use a tripod for best results..most serious photographers
also use a tripod..and it's not for the look of it.

Click to expand...

Yes they can, when they can. And I do too, when I can.

Daniella68313 said:

Daniella68313 said:

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience'

Click to expand...

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

If you are spending $1000 on a standard 50mm lens, I would hope to God that it were capable of prickly sharpness wide open.

Okay, so yeah we all think that a little blur is artistic every now and then. But you are in severe denial if you have a setup that costs nearly $10,000 and is giving you soft results. I'm sorry. Buy an XSi and a 50 1.8?

=Matt=

--



Cameras capable of making great photographs have become commonplace these days, but photographers have not. While technical innovations have made photography ever easier in recent decades, the art of producing images that other people will care about has become even more formidable. Galen Rowell

ChrisDM said:

Once again, not in the correct order. It would be Light, technique,
and then equipment, even though most on this forum would like it in
the opposite order.

Click to expand...

The reason you get this impression is probably the fact that this is a technical Canon SLR lens forum.

Excellent pics. What lens did u use here?

the comments you make are perfectly valid in the context of some kinds of photography, but you're ignoring the fact (and broadly speaking it is a fact) that for wildlife - especially bird - photography, there is a de facto standard of excellence which puts sharpness at or very near the top of the criteria by which images are judged.

Yes, some great bird pictures are great and not sharp, but they're exceptions to the rule.

people have attention deficit disorder and want the gear to do all the work.
--
Mitch

Keith Reeder said:

the comments you make are perfectly valid in the context of some
kinds of photography, but you're ignoring the fact (and broadly
speaking it is a fact) that for wildlife - especially bird -
photography, there is a de facto standard of excellence which puts
sharpness at or very near the top of the criteria by which images are
judged.

Yes, some great bird pictures are great and not sharp, but they're
exceptions to the rule.

Click to expand...

Actually Keith, in my original post to this thread ("The truth is..."), I talked quite definitively on how crucial is for some types of photography and medium, and gave an example (my large landscape prints) where I strive for pixel sharpness. But to most photographers especially on these forums, it is dwelled on too often when there are far, far mare crucial factors of great imagemaking overlooked, or at least not given the weight they deserve.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

because unsharpness in pictures (unless deliberately achieved) is usually equated with a bad photographer. Any other lens shortcomings (colour fringing, distortions) can be easily attributed to the lens, but if pictures are unsharp, usually the photographer takes the blame first...
--
Chris