It depends on the goal of the photo, doesn’t it? I focus more on sharpness when doing theater headshots, but atmosphere when I’m photographing for myself.
I don't come to a photo to see if it's sharp or not. I see it for what it is and do I like it or not. Having grown up using Box Brownies and the old 127, then an Olympus Trip and OM10 before digital came along, I guess sharpness was near the major consideration. That has stayed with me now I'm 70.
As an Army photographer back in the early nineties. I was doing a photo shoot of our Division’s first female Battalion Commander. She looked at me and asked if I could not make her look so old. I said no problem. I placed a soft focus filter on my lens. The picture was for publication, she loved the picture so much she used it for her official photo. Not everything has to be sharp.
Good on you for doing that rather than doing what was originally planned those things last a lifetime in memory more than technically perfect ones, I recently did a 1920's Hollywood mood shoot, over powered lighting to capture the style which was important using a Fresnel lens on the strobe, came out exactly as I wanted shot in b&W no editing done
One thing that has always fascinated me is the emphasis on sharp lenses by landscape shooters who love to go out and find the morning mist for their shooting. They chase fog all over the countryside to get that misty atmosphere, and then shoot with super sharp lenses.
And not only that. Photographers that have super expensive lenses that have really the best 'colour rendition' than any other lens, gets home, changes the colours Lightroom.
You seem to miss the point ..... what little detail these is in foggy.... particularly woodland ..... images, often needs to be sharp and delineated to add depth and separation.
The famous Japanese street photographer Daido Moriyama was part of a photographic collective in Japan in the late 1960s known as provoke. Their style of photography was known as 'are, bureh, bokeh' which means rough, blurry and out of focus. It didn't last long but was a huge influence on street photography. He is an inspirational photographer and well worth checking out.
I find myself drawing the clarity slider in Lightroom to the left more and more. I do this to regain the atmosphere and softness that the sharpness of my lenses took away.
BRAVO!! This is so far the only channel where photography (and not gearia&hysteria) is the main subject of the conversation! Keep up with the good work!!
This is a bit of a revelation to me! It seems obvious now you’ve said it, but I’ve been buying and swapping cameras and lenses with the main objective being the best sharpness at all focal lengths, when actually I should settle for what I have and concentrate on making images that are pleasing to me without worrying about ultimate sharpness! Hooray, time to get off the insane equipment buy/sell carousel!
Omg yes I remember the Colin softening filters - taking them off the camera to ficus precisely, then putting them back on to take the picture .. the debate about soften in on the camera lens vs softening in the darkroom… now I see folks are talking about something called a “pro mist filter” . What’s old is new again.
i am photographing since nearly 40 years, there is no need to talk about sharpness....back then nobody did look at pictures with 400%....artists don`t talk about sharpness, only people with no sense of art, or with no talent to make art thinking about sharpness and other " technical" things as only important thing..i know people they call themselves " painter", they have the best of the best colors, paint brushes but no talent..a master in his art knows his gear and makes his art without thinking about the gear 🙂 often beginners or people with less talent compensate this with thoughts about rules, sharpness. but i think this started with digital photography. analog photos were on point, but did never have this digital sharpness from this days now. but what do people? zooming in 400% in the eyes looking for sharpness. when it is sharp, the pic is ok. they don`t see the atmosphere, the feeling, the thoughts behind....sharpness is so overrated, so often used wrong... btw.... i like your videos and thoughts about photography...greets BM
Not sure I'd make the connection about talking about sharpness and tech with lack of talent. I do get your point though - in the history of visual arts, I can't really think of someone who is lauded because they were 'technincally brilliant'. Emotion always has to come into it. I'm glad you enjoy the content - where are you watching from?
@@ThePhotographicEye ..sorry, i finished my post now, i have always to think about wrong words, english is not my mother-language, yes the second sentence is said exaggeratedly.....i am from austria... :-)
@@Blackmind0 Servus! While tools are important, so is the talent of person using them. Well said. You could have the best equipment in the world and still make "tourist style" photos with it, if you don't have any talent. In my opinion, a mix of both atmosphere and sharpness is what creates the best photos.
Sharpness is a fascinating area, Alex, and thank you for this excellent exposition. Some professional photographers such as Martin Castein have also critiqued the obsession with ultra sharp lenses and full frame sensors with massive megapixel counts of 40MP and above. Martin's view, which I share, is that this trend is partly due to marketing by the major camera firms, and this has only accelerated with the commercial drive to switch photographers to mirrorless. You mention the sterile nature of many ultra sharp high definition cameras and lenses, and I think you have made a key point. Sharpness and pixel density obsession have eclipsed the art of manufacturing sensors with pleasing rendering and colour processing capabilities. It's analogous to manufacturing photographic film that is high resolution and yet just does not look natural. The quest for a system capable of photographing a grain of sand on the moon has actually resulted in images that all too often look unnatural. Maybe this is because the human eye looking directly at a subject does not process images with, for example, such sharply defined edges.
There is a book by Eric Lindbloom ("Angels at the Arno") where the subject matter is statues along the Arno river (Italy) and they were all taken with a Diana plastic camera; the images are not 'tack' sharp, obviously, but they create a wonderful mood.
Back when Flickr was new; a lot of photo groups popped up who would meet and go on walks together and share their work amongst each other. Many of these people were all about gear and sharpness was like a Holy word. I was kicked out of one of these groups after I spent an entire afternoon making ( and obiously later posting) perfectly sharp pictures of walls, just to make that point. Sharpness and within-a-third-of-a-stop-perfect-exposure and many if not most, gear related details are like special effects in movies, or a sauce on your food. It's great, if the main dish, the story, the image, is good. But you can't make roadkill taste like steak with any sauce. Cartier-Bresson set his exposure in the morning ffs and shot at that setting all day. I knew a woman that only used disposable cameras but she managed to see what others didn't, and her work was fantastic. I'm not saying what I produce is any good, either, but I dare say letting go of pixel peeping and looking at atmosphere as the main ingredient of a photograph sure made me a lot happier with it.
This whole sharpness topic reminds me of when audio went digital. Everyone was astonished about how nice and crisp it sounds (After the analog recordings always tended to sound a bit dull and had to be polished to get some shine back). Then after the first exitement, reality hit back: "It's crisp but it sounds cold". How can we get that warmth back that we loved in the old recordings ...... now we have digital plugins which add noise, distortion and all sort of anomalities. At the same time, prices for old tube microphones and old studio electronics went up and up. Does this sound familiar ? ;-) .............. for me: Product photography: propably leaning toward sharpness, portrait: leaning toward character and athmosphere
I'm a musician, and there are a ton of parallels between audio and photo. In both cases, while I respect the old analog world(I started recording demos on cassette tapes, couldn't afford a proper reel-to-reel), I think digital is superior. You can add noise and crackle with plugins, you can choose to use soft focus and add grain to an image, but if your raw file has blown out highlights or your master tape sound muddy and flat, it's really hard to fix it later.
@@BrentODell If you overexpose or severely underexpose an image, it's a failed mission, there's no amount of editing that could fix it. Also, if you record music in an environment that's noisy, I assume you can't fix it as well.
A good chunk of my photography is landscapes, and edge to edge sharpness is preached as a must have. But then I go and look at my own favorite photos or photos that I really enjoy from others, and low and behold many of them don't have edge to edge sharpness. But they do have good composition, lighting, and perhaps some storytelling. There is probably a point at which any extra sharpness makes little to no difference, but we overestimate what that point is. Sharpness is a marketing metric used to convince us to upgrade our equipment. Gotta sell those new lenses!
Have faith, have you looked at the work of Mark Littlejohn, who seldom uses a tripod, what he wants you to look at may be sharp but that is it. I doubt he does much focus stacking!
I can see how if you’re a landscape photographer shooting a magnificent scene with paths and nooks and crannies that make you want to wander through it, you would want a very sharp lens and to print the photo very large. Also, a portrait of a sitting bird is nice if it’s very sharp cause then you can see the wonderful detail of their feathers. For birds in flight I often prefer a little motion blur cause that’s how we see them. And there’s nothing uglier than a photograph of an athlete with his ankles frozen in an unnatural position. In the end, it’s good to have the skill to make sharp photographs because at least half the time you’ll want them to be sharp.
Although I am just an amateur, you describe my progression through photography well: at first I wanted the BIGGEST ZOOM RANGE possible in a lens, then I wanted the WIDEST APERTURE possible, then I went after the SHARPEST lens possible, now I have moved to individual prime lenses with CHARACTER - old, "flawed" lenses that give flairs, vingnetting, different bokeh ... atmosphere.
I once read, I think in the journal of the Ryal Photographic Society, that a photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson was criticised by another photographer as ‘not very sharp’. When the comment was reported to Cartier-Bresson he was said to have replied, ‘Ah, sharpness, such a bourgeois concept”. Whether that’s a true story or not, it impressed me and influenced my work at the time - and still does.
@@ThePhotographicEye Of all the names that roll so pleasantly off the tongue, HCB certainly is one of them. Would love to see any and all content on him if you have/intend to make any. He and Norman Rockwell are by far the largest influences on my street photography.
I recently discovered a photographer named Olga Karlovac whose entire body of work is blurry black and white images, and they are stunning! Thank you as well for reminding us that sharpness is not the be-all-end-all. I'm a beginner photographer and videographer, and this video is very heartening.
This video and thought process is gold. Because of my background in music, my craft of 18+ years, I’ve matured in my artistic journey to know what traps to avoid as I’ve ventured into photography (both commercial and artistic) and videography. So I’m pretty happy with the tools and resources I have and find the challenge of making artistic photography with less a joyful process. There are times though, where those thoughts creep in “should I get a Leica, ditch digital entirely and only do film bla bla bla” but then I look at my work and feel in love with the process and the results. So this video is like a good old pat on the back that says “chill out man, you’re alright” from a professional who’s had the experience as a pro. So thank you!
Thanks for this Alex, many of my tack sharp pictures are lacking in 'soul'. My favourites are soft, blurry even. I've kept so many fuzzy photos of birds moving around just because they take me back to that moment in time.
Soft, atmospheric photos.. That's what I love, for the most part. I see myself as more of an artist than straight photographer. On the other hand, when I am going for a sharper photo, I do stress about it! The ability to "pixel peep" has affected this greatly. Macro shots in particular. I think I need smaller f stops. I have a camera that doesn't do well in low light conditions and I constantly have to remind myself that sometimes it's OK - that the light is there and I need to focus (ahem) on the aperture and stop down instead of wide open all the time. Thanks for this.. Interesting, and very helpful topic.
I love the loss of sharpness when I print my 4x5s as cyanotypes. Mood becomes the key and not capturing every detail. We don't see the world in massive detail in 360 degrees.
The best photo I ever took was a husband, wife and child in Amsterdam with a Bronica medium format b/w film. What made it so lovely was the contact print - really quite small but huge impact.
I took notes! So much to think about. I think analogue will come back for that softness, poeple are getting tired of digital sharpness, although it does have its uses, but not as much as we think. As for the 'pricey' film development, just remember how much we invest into digital camera and gear, then Photoshop subscription etc, in comparison film development is nothing! I loved this video, thank you so much.
This is why I love this channel! My friend is a freelance wedding and event photographer. He’s technical, where as I lean heavily on my fine art background. If an image isn’t tack sharp with the perfect lighting, it’s no good to him. My eye is drawn to color and composition. Emotion and provoking thought through softness and mood is my priority. However, we agree to disagree. 🙂
I want the Ah Hah Moment when I find the right composition, lighting and just feel the moment when I take the photo. If someone doesn’t like it I don’t really care, it was the photo I wanted. Maybe it wasn’t the sharpest or too dark or too light. I know it made me feel something. That’s what I aim for, especially for sunsets. I go out again and again and once in a while I will get that moment when it came together that I felt sonething
I don't know how you prepare your videos but I like how you develop your argument while talking. It reminds me of my few good teachers who needed not 40 minutes of preparation for a lecture but 20 years... and then 5 minutes shortly before the lecture :-) Please carry on, you are a true inspiration!
Once again, Alex, great food for thought. I"ve never been the proverbial "pixel-peeper" except to marvel at the fantastic quality of today's digital image. When it come to the overall sharpness of an image, it's all up to what you feel that particular image should look like and the feeling you wish to convey. You never fail to either reaffirm things I've believed all along or give new inspiration and insight. What you provide to the photographic community is appreciated by far too few.
You've nailed this Alex. Wall to wall, floor to ceiling sharpness has become the latest holy grail. Guilty as charged! Granularity, or the banishing of same is another candidate. Disobedience is called for.
Well, by the time I was in photo school in 1972, I had been involved in photography for 13 years. Photo classes suggested that we use photography as a form of art. Art that encouraged the viewer to think and feel. Photography was to be used as a storytelling device. Using vintage lenses which in their day was practical, today I use for storytelling. I have 30 vintage lenses which I use exclusively for art. If you are storytelling, then there are no wrongs or rights. There is only the story. I use this in Marketing my products today. When I got the Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 it really helped me with storytelling. The closeups are with a short DOF and use focus as a means to an image that is emotional is very desirable for me. In music, I am a musician, there is a big difference between reciting music and creating it. It is all about storytelling. And as it is about Art there is only the effectiveness in connecting that is important. Well, at least that is my take on photography. Don't Think...... FEEL.
Just discovered your channel this afternoon and I can hardly stop watching and listening. Particularly this video. I recently moved back from Canon to Olympus (still have all my old gear) and from DSRL to Micro 4/3. With my Canon DSRL it was a bad mariage, we simply did not understand each other. I missed the feel of real photos. Now with the 4/3 I am happy again. I also bought a bunch of cheap manual lenses and love their softness and / or out of focus. To play with them is giving me so much joy. Also I was a little fed up with questions as "Are your photos sharp?" and "Why don"t you add more drama with Lightroom, people like brighter colours". I am not a professional photographer. I take photos of the landscape I live in (the stunning Wadden Sea area) and I want to express in my photos and share what my eyes see and soul feels. I want to show nature how it is. Also on a dull day in monochrome. Nature isn"t always sharp, nature does not show according pre-set rules. This video, your passion, the way your photographers heart speaks, is a relief. It confirms my passion, love and desire translating into photos the way I feel it. Thank you!!
My problem with too much sharpness, for me, is that I don’t consider it organic. But that’s the beauty in photography, it won’t let you pin it down to just one thing. I went to see an Ansel Adams exhibition in London years ago and they took my breath away but also did images from a Holga by a chap I can’t remember his name who does long exposures with it. I believe even Michael Kenna has fallen in love with the Holga. Thank you for the conversation.
There is a tendency in all fields to use all the tech one can. For example, when cameras added 1/1000th and 1/2000th, we started stopping motion. The real art is knowing you have the tool, how to use it, and the wisdom to know when to do so and when not to.
I really like your monologues about Photography as a Creative medium.. i'm still beginner in this field, but after all those vlogs, reviews, tips'n'tricks videos - I fell like im loosing something. And your videos helps me to clear my mind, and put it again on what is important, worth Thinking about. Not another technical details... Thank you :)
This is a great discussion, thank you. I recently got back a roll of Tri-X I took with my Konica Genba Kantoku from a wet, grey and troublesome sail across the equator (I bought the camera specifically for these conditions). Two photos in particular stand out as capturing the foreboding and dark atmosphere of that passage. They're almost blurred, out of focus, and yet they capture perfectly the feeling I felt on that journey and of all the shots I took, these two take me right back to the moment I captured them, filling me with the same dread I felt on that difficult trip. I'm telling you this because I agree with your sentiment: atmosphere is the key here. Atmosphere, not sharpness.
I see my shortsightedness correlates with my initial teenage; selfishness, weak desire to focus on, or erroneous judgement of, others and the big picture. So I do have a growing desire for clarity. I see the soft focus can emotionally engage me to wonder about my ego. A soft focus on a family portrait can suggest I’m to focus on family more. My desire for sharpness may correlate with my desire for an accurate understanding.
I've always had the same perspective on this topic Alex. The pursuit of perfection is rampant. The best or sharpest shot you get of each pose or scene is just that. But style, mood and feeling more than make up for a capture not being tak sharp. Keep up spreading your immense wisdom 👌
great video Alex and very valid points raised. For me it was the surgical sharpness of modern digital cameras that drove me back to film photography and the warmth that only film can convey. An extreme example was when using a pinhole camera that I made by converting an old Agfa Clack, the pictures are characteristically soft but bring so much more pleasure. I now virtually excclusively shoot with my old Bronica medium format film camera andd love the images that I produce, which would be sharper, cheaper, and quicker to take on digital, but which for me would be soulless. Could this be why others are returning to film?
For my taste even medium format iso 400 (never mind using one of the t-grain 100 iso “grainless wonders”) on a Bronica system or similar is already giving oodles of detail. In pre-digital era that was the entire point of using MF over 35mm. So totally on board with you about the warmth of film, but given the topic of sharpness … medium format film is still what most would consider VERY sharp unless it’s a cheapo tlr or a Holga. Of course you might be spreading Vaseline all over a filter on your Bronica to get a soft look. I have no idea how you’re using the thing! Just thought it odd. I’ve seen photos from Bronicas and the like which are digital-level detail and sharpness! As I started out saying, for my taste MF is too detail-rich. If I’m going to shoot film I’d rather go down the 35mm route as the end result is so far removed from digital that these days it has a distinctiveness about it. As I also said, I have no clue how you use or what you do with the Bronica, so I am in no way trying to criticise! Just think it’s curious someone trying to get away from the sterility of digital not making a beeline for 35mm. Just musing aloud really. Don’t take my comment to heart! I know for some film shooters it’s not about getting grainy pictures to prove “this is film”. It’s more of an overall warmth thing.
I did not have such a frank and truthful representation of a certain school of thought, but real for sure, and the most quintessential, philosophically..
My favourite lenses for woodland photography are the Fujifilm 23 F2/ 35mm F2 and 50mm F2. In postprocess I always do negative clarity to create a more softer look. So how sharper the image before processing the more I use negative clarity . That softer look gives to me a more natural look to the images,
Photography is both an art and science, one of the reasons I like it so much. It is a technical art, that technical scientific side drives for perfection. At the start it is the technical side which you learn first, the art skill comes later. Now I care a lot less about technical perfection, the sharpness. If I were photography birds, or product, probably would still care. Whatever gives you pleasure is great. Love the videos, often thought inspiring.
Point of order....for impressionist oil paintings I very much do walk up to an inch from the painting and look at the application of the paint to the surface. It's what makes those paintings so exciting, so visceral.
I'm a Lensbaby collector, one of the hardest things for me has been to let go of tac sharpness and try to get some unique dreamy pictures, not on all of my photos but on subjects that seem to lend well to that type of look. Look. I know you're not about gear but I have gotten really pleasing results from various Lensbaby lenses.
And yet we can get that tack sharp photo if we choose to shoot at a higher f-stop. I have quite a few as well but it’s the bokeh of the Twist60 and the Sweets that enchant me.
@@copperblue7 yes I'm entering that street dreamy look now for certain subjects. I still wouldn't do the pinhole and extreme soft focus Lensbaby optics. That's a bit too soft for me.
Fellow South African! - At least now I have some closure when I miss focus. I am highly critical of myself when I miss focus however people who view my pics do like them anyway. Getting sharp photos with fast vintage lenses is super difficult so not always easy to nail focus. It does bring some kind of character with a soft in focus face.
Very interesting topic! I knew an old photographer that told me this funny story- he did all he could to gather good gear and train a good technique to get the sharpest images possible because back in the day it was "a hallmark of quality" - after all, poor gear could not get the sharp images no matter what. He on the other hand could control sharpness by creative defocusing. But again, he also got the kinds of jobs you talked about- portraiture and all sort of "atmospheric shots" -for weddings etc. Indeed clinical sharpness was preferred by younger looking folks while the older ones were asking for "clemency" in the shape of a "portrait filter" ...sometimes he really smudged a UV filter specially to get a stronger soft focus effect. So in my opinion- all of these techniques are tools. Filters, defocusing, effects or whatnot. We can find times and places for all- but we don't need to become slaves to them. Last week my sister was searching for a wedding photographer- and she was recommended a local professional who post-processed everything with color grading and desaturation and added excessive grain. She asked about the possibility of getting other kind of images (non-ultra-processed) and the guy basically said no can do, it's my visual style. Yup, his and some million other kids' , since the 2000s?
Thank you so much. You have encapsulated in one video, my philosophy of photography. I like that term “cult of sharpness”, It expresses my thoughts on people who are slaves to sharpness.
As a painter, we absolutely do go as close to the painting as possible to see how the painting was rendered! That’s part of the fun, seeing what happens to the painting when you view it close vs far away, you get to experience the brushwork or lack of it and it gives you insight into the process of that painting, which is less apparent when viewed from afar. Other than that I completely agree, we worry about photo sharpness too much
As an older man who's days ahead are fewer than those behind, I listen to photos listen to what they provoke within technical skill is fantastic but it alone won't wake my heart.
I love seeing your photography books Alex. I would love to learn how to make soft, atmospheric images. All the images I love are like this but I’m not clever enough to work out how it is done. Thanks for sharing with us. ❤❤❤❤❤
It's interesting to read the comments. They often turn in to arguments about which is right, which is better. I think that kind of misses the point of your discussion. Some subjects need clarity and some subjects need atmosphere. Each photographer sees their subject in their own unique way. Either approach will kill the image if the approach becomes the end rather than the means.
This is a great topic. Personally, I tend toward sharpness in my own photos. Usually this is because my goal is to create a photo the evokes the feelings I had when I was in the moment. More often than not (for me) this is best accomplished with as sharp an image as possible. But not always. A misty morning or in the gloaming, or a confused or uncertain frame of mind, or a very kinetic scene, these can often be better served by lack of sharpness. It’s just as you said in your comments on Andy Day. “When I look at his photographs they make me feel like I want to go walk there, they make me feel like I’m there, they give me that atmosphere that I get from actually being there.” Perhaps lack of sharpness more often evokes that feeling in some people. For me it’s just the opposite. Or maybe that’s just reflective of the things and places and times that happen to inspire me, they just happen to be better served by sharpness? But sharpness is always a means to an end, not an end in itself. I’ll gladly abandon the quest for sharpness if it will get me closer to the feeling I want to capture. As you said at the very end: “Whatever helps you to find a new way of expressing yourself in your pictures.” In any case, a fantastic video essay. Thanks for posting.
Fascinating discussion Alex and something that I have been thinking on myself. I am old enough to remember and have used cokin, vaseline on lenses and ladies tights stretched across the lens to soften an image. The conclusion I have come to is that sharpness is not required to make a good picture but is necessary for accurate recording ie nature or science. If it was essential in order to produce an image that is admired, that has atmosphere, that conveys something deeper than a two dimensional representation of a subject, the impressionist movement of artists would never have got started. The sterility of sharpness is driving photographers back to vintage gear, film cameras and older lenses, just as audiophiles are reverting to vinyl for the character of the sound. If producing a good image is your bag there is a place for sharpnes but also a place for softness depending upon the demands of the subject matter and the result you intend to achieve.
Hi Alex. Thank you for a very informative video. I always enjoy learning about the history of photography. Your “lesson” shows us by looking at the work of photographers from the past, we may gain a sense of where we are as photographers today. There is no substitute for learning as much as we can-from ALL photographers-past & present. No doubt, we will all continue to evolve as artists in the future as well. How blessed we are.😊
What you describe , is why using a SONY Alpha ; I began adapting lenses , to search out a gaze or wandering , into light and separating elements , later I was and am ... enamored of 120mm and 4x5 , except my sheet film costs hundreds to get developed ... ouch !! Oddly , now I am back to the SONY and the rare older lenses that sing , but have fallen in love with 2 Leica bodies , the 0.72 M A , and my beloved 0.90 M 3 , the M3 being the most joyful camera I own , to clasp in hands , to organically with hope and planning , shoot the mystery of Light. My journey back into Imaging , over 10 years , has been in itself an education. Excellent video .
There is no chosing just one :) It all depends on the mood/vibe. However, I do love the people that spend thousands of dollars on a lens, talkng about how incredibly sharp the lens is and then soften their photos in post , specially portraits.
Thank you Alex. This is a very important topic for many reasons but I think the most obvious one is that none of the modern first party lenses from the bigger camera manufacturers have character and neither do the likes of Sigma and Tamron. Most lenses have also become very big because of the endless pursuit of "optical perfection".
Yesterday I was at some lakes that I go to for bird watching. It was dull, drizzly, 2 degrees and no sun until about 3 pm. And no interesting or close birds. So I decided to try and photograph the lake on that day and catch the atmosphere. I manually defocused my camera to get the image with a 6x6 crop in mind. So pleased I did as I got one or two ok images. Then today I saw this video. Thank you for the clarity of your comments, so helpful!
Another great vid... what I love about cams like the Holga or the LC-A, is that they combine both that sharpness (to a small extend) with the soft focus atmosphere... with a Holga, if you get your distance just right, you'll have selective sharpness, with fall off becoming soft as you approach the frame edges...
I ❤this video! You presented me with different perspectives of sharpness vs softness; “atmospheric” photographs. Thank you for opening up my mind and not letting me think that there is only one way to photograph. ❤🔥👏🏽
Great discussion about what makes a great photo without actually talk about it, but instead going after what some people see as the one unique thing that will make their photos great. Bokeh, sharpness, softness, saturation. It's never none of those technical things that make the photo great. You showed great sharp photos and great soft photos, some color some b&w. Great video
So glad you've covered this - I've been boring people for ages about how sharpness isn't important (unless it is). Basically judging the quality of an image on how sharp it is, is just a comment on the photographer's expensive lenses (assuming technique has been nailed) it's like saying "That Van Gogh's brushes were rubbish (if you see what I mean) Photography is not about equipment it's about lighting and composition and feeling. Though that's not going to keep the camera and lens manufacturers rich - 200mp next probably. I saw a video by an optometrist who showed that human eyes can't even detect resolution higher than 12mp - sh - don't tell Sony
Very nice to hear you talk about pictorialism. The pictorialist William Mortensen has been my favorite photographer for several years. He has been a strong influence on my own photography. I agree that sharpness is overrated. When I was a beginner I cared about it but now, sharpness has no value of its own for me. I find myself softening a picture as often as I sharpen one. It depends on the purpose of the picture.
Wonderful video.... I think that the sharpness hype is a way to sell more gear without even touch aesthetic questions which would rather let photographers think and feel and question instead of buying....
I often shot in the studio with one of the sharpest roll film systems ever made using Zeiss Softar filters. To get softer images. Additionally it doesn’t take much to realize that some of the greatest images made throughout humanity are soft, or the result of, not mistakes, but of technically imperfect captures. One of may favorite images I have ever shot if from a pinhole (lensless) camera.
Grain is a subject that should always accompany the sharpness discussion. Digital photography has changed how people look at what a perfect image is. Personally I feel like it is to the detriment of photography.
Softar filters were essential in my Hasselblad/portrait days. I love the soft and blown highlights. Interestingly, the filters don’t do much on my super sharp lenses on a digital body.
Very well put and expressed thanks. Another photographer remarked recently that with digital images he takes a little sharpness off and I think he has a point. Atmosphere btw.
The industry / technological dimensions can't be ignored either. I'm reminded here of the cult embracing 'high-end' audio.... I have a stellar audio system, only decades outdated. I was interested to read a comparison between my classic ESL57 speakers, which i adore, and some contemporary equivalent. The 57s were a benchmark by which all else had to be judged, but against the modern speakers, they fell far short. I was even more taken by the fact that their shortcomings, as measured by the latest and most sensitive equipment, were most pronounced in the frequency range more usually experienced by bats and the odd freakish five year old child. Real world application? Mainly the production of insatiable desire in those who have the money, but not the neurological facility, to apprehend the extra few kilohertz on offer. Good vid / fireside chat, thanks - i'll be taking the Tele-Takumars out for a romp in your honour come morning. Cheers.
Very interesting topic. I remember when I started 50 years ago, I was told that it is "un flattering when taking a portrate of a lady (especially a lady over 30 for instance) to make it sharp. A trick I used to use was to focus normally and then stick a strip of Sellotape across the lens-hood. This has the effect of doing away with laughter-lines and any other skin effect associated with growing old. It had the desired effect.
I think for a good number of years, Alex, that I was driven down the road of sharpness and the more pixels the better. I bought a bridge camera about four years ago and initially I was disappointed; the lens was soft and the dynamic range was limited and I went through many periods of blown highlights, fuzzy images and lack of sharpness. The more I watched professional photographers with their amazing cameras and amazing lenses, the more discontent I became and the desire for such amazing cameras and amazing lenses really took hold of me. I was seriously losing my direction, why did I love photography, was it the kit or the experiencing of seeing something amazing and freezing that moment in time. But what I didn't realise was that bridge camera had been teaching me all the time over the years. I learning to see and to have a better understanding of seeing. Through the frustration came little victories, not from the sophistication of my camera, not from what it had, but rather from what it didn't have; the gaps are what I had to fill in through practise, lots of practise, and the joy of those little victories along the way. I feel more in touch with being where I want to be and photographing something that brings me delight. The photographs I have seen by amazing photographers with amazing equipment still strike awe in me. But I've found that for me I need to be me and to keep on learning how to see through my own eyes. Thank you so much for this very poignant video. Sometimes the discussion of one theme has a way of clarifying not only the main topic, but to also introduce another thought that hadn't been considered. It is an excellent video, thank you Alex. PS for Sharpness or Atmosphere, I think I am somewhere in between.
I agree with your argument. All the same, sharpness always seems, to me, to hold out the (delusional) promise of being able to zoom in and in ad infinitum, till eventually something of merit takes shape within my picture frame. Softness now, is something I have to make an effort with. The dividing line between softness and incompetence can be very thin!
I started shooting with my Nikon D3100 and two kit lenses, the 18-35mm and 24-105 Nikkors, having not had any advice from anyone or watched a single TH-cam video, while working as a tour coordinator for a travel abroad company. Some of my favorite images came from my travels then. Often they are underexposed, don't follow the "rules" of composition, and/or the focus is soft where it's "not supposed" to be. A few years later after a photography hiatus I was given an old Canon EOS Rebel SL1 and decided to make up for lost time as a photographer. So I immediately got obsessed with acquiring lenses- specifically the fastest glass I could find a way to afford, chasing bokeh, and insight-crunching massive amounts of content from photographer TH-cam channels about how to become technically perfect. I lamented not being able to afford L-series, Opera, or Sigma Art lenses to get the kind of tack sharpness I saw from other photographers. In the process, none of the mood or expression of my images came anywhere near the ones I captured with my old D3100. Then I watched a review video from Christopher Frost about the original Lensbaby tilt-shift lens and immediately ordered one from MPB. This brought back my self-trust about capturing atmosphere and expression in images first and foremost over technical perfection. The shortcut to this conclusion for anyone struggling with this dilemma would be this: Play with Lensbaby equipment (or vintage lenses) for long enough and you'll get over your internalized stigmas about sharpness as the be-all and end-all for good photography.
From my perspective, although I enjoy well done softer images, I wear glasses. I take them off, and my world is one big soft image. For me, sharpness allows me to see the things my eyes can no longer see on their own. An 8k image of a mounts range, where I can zoom in and clearly see someone standing on the furthest summit in the background, captivates me. I do value what you've presented, also. There is definitely a place for that which you've highlighted in this discussion. It's very difficult to make a good print from a bad negative, although I no longer produce negatives. I do still have my grandfather's film camera.
I just bought a petzval lens. It is capable of being atmosphereic or sharp depending on how you adjust it. I believe that areas in an image that are sharp are a refuge for the eye and that soft areas are likewise refuge from the sharpness..
Good point about f.64 and their 'straight photography' being the beginning of our obsession of sharpness in our images. I would add that it really took off when digital photography became a thing and manufacturers were pushing ever larger megapixel capabilities which was really to get us to buy new gear. I'm hoping that the pendulum swings the other way as manufacturers understand that many of us want more atmosphere and less of a sterile look in our digital photos; more like film cameras.
I started photography about mid 80's and don't really recall sharpness being a thing until I got to photoschool in 94. So it must have been in the wings around then..
This obsession with sharpness exists in boxing photography with everyone shooting at 1/1000 or above, but I've found my APC camera struggling in low light even at f2.8 and over time, I've found I can get great results with even 1/400, with some softness to the image and motion blur adding something more to the photos! Love your videos!
I shoot random pictures with Ixus 85 P&S camera and I always set ISO so that I get exposure at around 1/50-1/60. I try to be perfectly still, but that thing still takes bizarrely sharp pictures that have this sort of light dusk, sort of weird unsharpness in sharpness. It makes things look like those 80s dreamy shots.
This can mostly be explained by the fact that most people don't appreciate photography as an artform but instead appreciate it for it's detail, especially people who aren't into photography. Personally, I appreciate both, I pay attention to composition and the feeling the photo gives but I also like to zoom in and appreciate the detail.
I recently bought myself a used 48" 4k OLED TV that I'm proofing my photos on. If I were to print them, they're not going to really be bigger than that so as long as the image isn't obviously out of focus, I don't care about the individual pixels unless I start cropping. But on a smaller PC/laptop screen I think it's harder to get that sense of scale so you're more likely to zoom in to find focus. Then again, I also go against the grain and use like f4 for landscapes.
Another great discussion. Loving the channel. Expression/Atmosphere would be my choice over sharpness. I started to learn about the history of photography using my local library and came across some great images from the past that were not sharp but captured something special. Still have to remind myself not to get stuck in a super sharp mindset. Keep up the great content.
If you had to choose one - Sharpness or 'Atmosphere'? Let us know!
😇
Atmosphere every time. I love sharp photos, but if there is no atmosphere? It's a dead photo.
It depends on the goal of the photo, doesn’t it? I focus more on sharpness when doing theater headshots, but atmosphere when I’m photographing for myself.
I don't come to a photo to see if it's sharp or not. I see it for what it is and do I like it or not. Having grown up using Box Brownies and the old 127, then an Olympus Trip and OM10 before digital came along, I guess sharpness was near the major consideration. That has stayed with me now I'm 70.
In most cases atmosphere
It shouldn't be a choice of one or the other. they both have their places in photography.
As an Army photographer back in the early nineties. I was doing a photo shoot of our Division’s first female Battalion Commander. She looked at me and asked if I could not make her look so old. I said no problem. I placed a soft focus filter on my lens. The picture was for publication, she loved the picture so much she used it for her official photo. Not everything has to be sharp.
My clients like the blurred photos too.
The Doris Day solution!🙂
Good on you for doing that rather than doing what was originally planned those things last a lifetime in memory more than technically perfect ones, I recently did a 1920's Hollywood mood shoot, over powered lighting to capture the style which was important using a Fresnel lens on the strobe, came out exactly as I wanted shot in b&W no editing done
One thing that has always fascinated me is the emphasis on sharp lenses by landscape shooters who love to go out and find the morning mist for their shooting. They chase fog all over the countryside to get that misty atmosphere, and then shoot with super sharp lenses.
And not only that. Photographers that have super expensive lenses that have really the best 'colour rendition' than any other lens, gets home, changes the colours Lightroom.
LOL...too funny. (I've been guilty of this myself.)
You seem to miss the point ..... what little detail these is in foggy.... particularly woodland ..... images, often needs to be sharp and delineated to add depth and separation.
@@tilerman Applying desaturate....😆
🤔😂👍🏻
The famous Japanese street photographer Daido Moriyama was part of a photographic collective in Japan in the late 1960s known as provoke. Their style of photography was known as 'are, bureh, bokeh' which means rough, blurry and out of focus. It didn't last long but was a huge influence on street photography. He is an inspirational photographer and well worth checking out.
Check out Sugimoto while you're at it.
Moriyama is one of my absolute favorite photographers. His vision is extraordinary
I find myself drawing the clarity slider in Lightroom to the left more and more. I do this to regain the atmosphere and softness that the sharpness of my lenses took away.
BRAVO!! This is so far the only channel where photography (and not gearia&hysteria) is the main subject of the conversation! Keep up with the good work!!
Thank you.
This is a bit of a revelation to me! It seems obvious now you’ve said it, but I’ve been buying and swapping cameras and lenses with the main objective being the best sharpness at all focal lengths, when actually I should settle for what I have and concentrate on making images that are pleasing to me without worrying about ultimate sharpness! Hooray, time to get off the insane equipment buy/sell carousel!
Shooting analog is what it did it for me in terms of stop worrying about gear. Now I just buy film :(
Oh my god I didn't to hear this. This is so true! I never realized how much of an excuse it was for me saying "it's super sharp! Look! It's so good!"
This video has me rethinking my photography in regards to atmosphere...Food for thought... Thank you.
Thanks for watching
Omg yes I remember the Colin softening filters - taking them off the camera to ficus precisely, then putting them back on to take the picture .. the debate about soften in on the camera lens vs softening in the darkroom… now I see folks are talking about something called a “pro mist filter” . What’s old is new again.
i am photographing since nearly 40 years, there is no need to talk about sharpness....back then nobody did look at pictures with 400%....artists don`t talk about sharpness, only people with no sense of art, or with no talent to make art thinking about sharpness and other " technical" things as only important thing..i know people they call themselves " painter", they have the best of the best colors, paint brushes but no talent..a master in his art knows his gear and makes his art without thinking about the gear 🙂 often beginners or people with less talent compensate this with thoughts about rules, sharpness. but i think this started with digital photography. analog photos were on point, but did never have this digital sharpness from this days now. but what do people? zooming in 400% in the eyes looking for sharpness. when it is sharp, the pic is ok. they don`t see the atmosphere, the feeling, the thoughts behind....sharpness is so overrated, so often used wrong... btw.... i like your videos and thoughts about photography...greets BM
Not sure I'd make the connection about talking about sharpness and tech with lack of talent.
I do get your point though - in the history of visual arts, I can't really think of someone who is lauded because they were 'technincally brilliant'.
Emotion always has to come into it.
I'm glad you enjoy the content - where are you watching from?
@@ThePhotographicEye ..sorry, i finished my post now, i have always to think about wrong words, english is not my mother-language, yes the second sentence is said exaggeratedly.....i am from austria... :-)
agreed!
@@Blackmind0 Servus! While tools are important, so is the talent of person using them. Well said. You could have the best equipment in the world and still make "tourist style" photos with it, if you don't have any talent.
In my opinion, a mix of both atmosphere and sharpness is what creates the best photos.
@@astanisystems ..servus klingt so österreichisch..:)
Sharpness is a fascinating area, Alex, and thank you for this excellent exposition.
Some professional photographers such as Martin Castein have also critiqued the obsession with ultra sharp lenses and full frame sensors with massive megapixel counts of 40MP and above. Martin's view, which I share, is that this trend is partly due to marketing by the major camera firms, and this has only accelerated with the commercial drive to switch photographers to mirrorless.
You mention the sterile nature of many ultra sharp high definition cameras and lenses, and I think you have made a key point. Sharpness and pixel density obsession have eclipsed the art of manufacturing sensors with pleasing rendering and colour processing capabilities. It's analogous to manufacturing photographic film that is high resolution and yet just does not look natural.
The quest for a system capable of photographing a grain of sand on the moon has actually resulted in images that all too often look unnatural. Maybe this is because the human eye looking directly at a subject does not process images with, for example, such sharply defined edges.
There is a book by Eric Lindbloom ("Angels at the Arno") where the subject matter is statues along the Arno river (Italy) and they were all taken with a Diana plastic camera; the images are not 'tack' sharp, obviously, but they create a wonderful mood.
Interesting thought, that sharpness is a choice, not a requirement. I'd never considered it that way, and it's kind of liberating.
Back when Flickr was new; a lot of photo groups popped up who would meet and go on walks together and share their work amongst each other. Many of these people were all about gear and sharpness was like a Holy word. I was kicked out of one of these groups after I spent an entire afternoon making ( and obiously later posting) perfectly sharp pictures of walls, just to make that point. Sharpness and within-a-third-of-a-stop-perfect-exposure and many if not most, gear related details are like special effects in movies, or a sauce on your food. It's great, if the main dish, the story, the image, is good. But you can't make roadkill taste like steak with any sauce. Cartier-Bresson set his exposure in the morning ffs and shot at that setting all day. I knew a woman that only used disposable cameras but she managed to see what others didn't, and her work was fantastic. I'm not saying what I produce is any good, either, but I dare say letting go of pixel peeping and looking at atmosphere as the main ingredient of a photograph sure made me a lot happier with it.
This whole sharpness topic reminds me of when audio went digital. Everyone was astonished about how nice and crisp it sounds (After the analog recordings always tended to sound a bit dull and had to be polished to get some shine back). Then after the first exitement, reality hit back: "It's crisp but it sounds cold". How can we get that warmth back that we loved in the old recordings ...... now we have digital plugins which add noise, distortion and all sort of anomalities. At the same time, prices for old tube microphones and old studio electronics went up and up. Does this sound familiar ? ;-) .............. for me: Product photography: propably leaning toward sharpness, portrait: leaning toward character and athmosphere
Herbert L, this is why I listen to vinyl.
I'm a musician, and there are a ton of parallels between audio and photo. In both cases, while I respect the old analog world(I started recording demos on cassette tapes, couldn't afford a proper reel-to-reel), I think digital is superior. You can add noise and crackle with plugins, you can choose to use soft focus and add grain to an image, but if your raw file has blown out highlights or your master tape sound muddy and flat, it's really hard to fix it later.
That's why lofi is a thing.
@@BrentODell If you overexpose or severely underexpose an image, it's a failed mission, there's no amount of editing that could fix it.
Also, if you record music in an environment that's noisy, I assume you can't fix it as well.
The camera industry LOVES all the sharpness hype, another enjoyed video Alex.
A good chunk of my photography is landscapes, and edge to edge sharpness is preached as a must have. But then I go and look at my own favorite photos or photos that I really enjoy from others, and low and behold many of them don't have edge to edge sharpness. But they do have good composition, lighting, and perhaps some storytelling. There is probably a point at which any extra sharpness makes little to no difference, but we overestimate what that point is. Sharpness is a marketing metric used to convince us to upgrade our equipment. Gotta sell those new lenses!
Have faith, have you looked at the work of Mark Littlejohn, who seldom uses a tripod, what he wants you to look at may be sharp but that is it. I doubt he does much focus stacking!
@@iaincphotography6051 His work impresses the heck out of me.
@@iandavis1355 I am lucky as I only live 25 mins away from Joe Cornish Gallery, Mark has some of his work in there, and he is in good company.
I can see how if you’re a landscape photographer shooting a magnificent scene with paths and nooks and crannies that make you want to wander through it, you would want a very sharp lens and to print the photo very large. Also, a portrait of a sitting bird is nice if it’s very sharp cause then you can see the wonderful detail of their feathers. For birds in flight I often prefer a little motion blur cause that’s how we see them. And there’s nothing uglier than a photograph of an athlete with his ankles frozen in an unnatural position. In the end, it’s good to have the skill to make sharp photographs because at least half the time you’ll want them to be sharp.
Look at the work of Mark Littlejohn.
Although I am just an amateur, you describe my progression through photography well: at first I wanted the BIGGEST ZOOM RANGE possible in a lens, then I wanted the WIDEST APERTURE possible, then I went after the SHARPEST lens possible, now I have moved to individual prime lenses with CHARACTER - old, "flawed" lenses that give flairs, vingnetting, different bokeh ... atmosphere.
Atmosphere comes from everything _except_ the lens in my experience...
I once read, I think in the journal of the Ryal Photographic Society, that a photograph by Henri Cartier-Bresson was criticised by another photographer as ‘not very sharp’. When the comment was reported to Cartier-Bresson he was said to have replied, ‘Ah, sharpness, such a bourgeois concept”. Whether that’s a true story or not, it impressed me and influenced my work at the time - and still does.
I did think about that quote, but I've been throwing HCB's name about a lot recently so decided not to :D
@@ThePhotographicEye Of all the names that roll so pleasantly off the tongue, HCB certainly is one of them. Would love to see any and all content on him if you have/intend to make any. He and Norman Rockwell are by far the largest influences on my street photography.
I recently discovered a photographer named Olga Karlovac whose entire body of work is blurry black and white images, and they are stunning! Thank you as well for reminding us that sharpness is not the be-all-end-all. I'm a beginner photographer and videographer, and this video is very heartening.
Thanks for watching
This video and thought process is gold. Because of my background in music, my craft of 18+ years, I’ve matured in my artistic journey to know what traps to avoid as I’ve ventured into photography (both commercial and artistic) and videography. So I’m pretty happy with the tools and resources I have and find the challenge of making artistic photography with less a joyful process. There are times though, where those thoughts creep in “should I get a Leica, ditch digital entirely and only do film bla bla bla” but then I look at my work and feel in love with the process and the results. So this video is like a good old pat on the back that says “chill out man, you’re alright” from a professional who’s had the experience as a pro. So thank you!
Awesome. Thanks for watching
Thanks for this Alex, many of my tack sharp pictures are lacking in 'soul'. My favourites are soft, blurry even. I've kept so many fuzzy photos of birds moving around just because they take me back to that moment in time.
Soft, atmospheric photos.. That's what I love, for the most part. I see myself as more of an artist than straight photographer. On the other hand, when I am going for a sharper photo, I do stress about it! The ability to "pixel peep" has affected this greatly. Macro shots in particular. I think I need smaller f stops. I have a camera that doesn't do well in low light conditions and I constantly have to remind myself that sometimes it's OK - that the light is there and I need to focus (ahem) on the aperture and stop down instead of wide open all the time. Thanks for this.. Interesting, and very helpful topic.
Most of my favorite photographs are not “sharp”
So happy you covered this subject Alex. Very well done.
Thank you
I love the loss of sharpness when I print my 4x5s as cyanotypes. Mood becomes the key and not capturing every detail. We don't see the world in massive detail in 360 degrees.
The best photo I ever took was a husband, wife and child in Amsterdam with a Bronica medium format b/w film. What made it so lovely was the contact print - really quite small but huge impact.
I took notes! So much to think about. I think analogue will come back for that softness, poeple are getting tired of digital sharpness, although it does have its uses, but not as much as we think. As for the 'pricey' film development, just remember how much we invest into digital camera and gear, then Photoshop subscription etc, in comparison film development is nothing! I loved this video, thank you so much.
This is why I love this channel! My friend is a freelance wedding and event photographer. He’s technical, where as I lean heavily on my fine art background. If an image isn’t tack sharp with the perfect lighting, it’s no good to him. My eye is drawn to color and composition. Emotion and provoking thought through softness and mood is my priority. However, we agree to disagree. 🙂
I want the Ah Hah Moment when I find the right composition, lighting and just feel the moment when I take the photo. If someone doesn’t like it I don’t really care, it was the photo I wanted. Maybe it wasn’t the sharpest or too dark or too light. I know it made me feel something. That’s what I aim for, especially for sunsets. I go out again and again and once in a while I will get that moment when it came together that I felt sonething
Hey Alex! Honoured to get a mention. Glad my reflections struck a chord. Another excellent video, as always. 😊
My pleasure! Really enjoyed your photos and they illustrate exactly what I was saying so well.
I don't know how you prepare your videos but I like how you develop your argument while talking. It reminds me of my few good teachers who needed not 40 minutes of preparation for a lecture but 20 years... and then 5 minutes shortly before the lecture :-) Please carry on, you are a true inspiration!
Once again, Alex, great food for thought. I"ve never been the proverbial "pixel-peeper" except to marvel at the fantastic quality of today's digital image. When it come to the overall sharpness of an image, it's all up to what you feel that particular image should look like and the feeling you wish to convey. You never fail to either reaffirm things I've believed all along or give new inspiration and insight. What you provide to the photographic community is appreciated by far too few.
You've nailed this Alex. Wall to wall, floor to ceiling sharpness has become the latest holy grail. Guilty as charged! Granularity, or the banishing of same is another candidate. Disobedience is called for.
Thankful someone spoken out this!
Sharpness is relative and in the eye of the beholder. Impact rules.
Well, by the time I was in photo school in 1972, I had been involved in photography for 13 years. Photo classes suggested that we use photography as a form of art. Art that encouraged the viewer to think and feel. Photography was to be used as a storytelling device. Using vintage lenses which in their day was practical, today I use for storytelling. I have 30 vintage lenses which I use exclusively for art. If you are storytelling, then there are no wrongs or rights. There is only the story. I use this in Marketing my products today. When I got the Olympus OM-System G.Zuiko Auto-S 55mm f1.2 it really helped me with storytelling. The closeups are with a short DOF and use focus as a means to an image that is emotional is very desirable for me. In music, I am a musician, there is a big difference between reciting music and creating it. It is all about storytelling. And as it is about Art there is only the effectiveness in connecting that is important. Well, at least that is my take on photography.
Don't Think...... FEEL.
Just discovered your channel this afternoon and I can hardly stop watching and listening. Particularly this video. I recently moved back from Canon to Olympus (still have all my old gear) and from DSRL to Micro 4/3. With my Canon DSRL it was a bad mariage, we simply did not understand each other. I missed the feel of real photos. Now with the 4/3 I am happy again.
I also bought a bunch of cheap manual lenses and love their softness and / or out of focus. To play with them is giving me so much joy.
Also I was a little fed up with questions as "Are your photos sharp?" and "Why don"t you add more drama with Lightroom, people like brighter colours".
I am not a professional photographer. I take photos of the landscape I live in (the stunning Wadden Sea area) and I want to express in my photos and share what my eyes see and soul feels. I want to show nature how it is. Also on a dull day in monochrome. Nature isn"t always sharp, nature does not show according pre-set rules.
This video, your passion, the way your photographers heart speaks, is a relief. It confirms my passion, love and desire translating into photos the way I feel it.
Thank you!!
My problem with too much sharpness, for me, is that I don’t consider it organic. But that’s the beauty in photography, it won’t let you pin it down to just one thing. I went to see an Ansel Adams exhibition in London years ago and they took my breath away but also did images from a Holga by a chap I can’t remember his name who does long exposures with it. I believe even Michael Kenna has fallen in love with the Holga.
Thank you for the conversation.
There is a tendency in all fields to use all the tech one can. For example, when cameras added 1/1000th and 1/2000th, we started stopping motion. The real art is knowing you have the tool, how to use it, and the wisdom to know when to do so and when not to.
You made me rethink about a lot of pictures I dumped just because zooming to 100% did not look sharp enough... Especially high ISO ones
I really like your monologues about Photography as a Creative medium.. i'm still beginner in this field, but after all those vlogs, reviews, tips'n'tricks videos - I fell like im loosing something. And your videos helps me to clear my mind, and put it again on what is important, worth Thinking about. Not another technical details... Thank you :)
Thank you for watching
This is a great discussion, thank you. I recently got back a roll of Tri-X I took with my Konica Genba Kantoku from a wet, grey and troublesome sail across the equator (I bought the camera specifically for these conditions). Two photos in particular stand out as capturing the foreboding and dark atmosphere of that passage. They're almost blurred, out of focus, and yet they capture perfectly the feeling I felt on that journey and of all the shots I took, these two take me right back to the moment I captured them, filling me with the same dread I felt on that difficult trip. I'm telling you this because I agree with your sentiment: atmosphere is the key here. Atmosphere, not sharpness.
Something stuck with me lately: you don’t always see great photos from “the greats” but you see great stories.
💯 % agree.. photography is not everything about sharpness
Alex, I am amazed at your photography school memories. They appear often and are very apt.
Thanks Harold. I’m obviously rubbed off me there in Vermulen Street. If I could do one thing over again, it would be those three years at Pretoria.
I see my shortsightedness correlates with my initial teenage; selfishness, weak desire to focus on, or erroneous judgement of, others and the big picture. So I do have a growing desire for clarity. I see the soft focus can emotionally engage me to wonder about my ego. A soft focus on a family portrait can suggest I’m to focus on family more. My desire for sharpness may correlate with my desire for an accurate understanding.
Yes! Thank you! This talk is long overdue - and probably too late for many people trying their hardest to make photography boring.
I've always had the same perspective on this topic Alex. The pursuit of perfection is rampant. The best or sharpest shot you get of each pose or scene is just that. But style, mood and feeling more than make up for a capture not being tak sharp. Keep up spreading your immense wisdom 👌
Thanks for watching.
great video Alex and very valid points raised. For me it was the surgical sharpness of modern digital cameras that drove me back to film photography and the warmth that only film can convey. An extreme example was when using a pinhole camera that I made by converting an old Agfa Clack, the pictures are characteristically soft but bring so much more pleasure. I now virtually excclusively shoot with my old Bronica medium format film camera andd love the images that I produce, which would be sharper, cheaper, and quicker to take on digital, but which for me would be soulless. Could this be why others are returning to film?
For my taste even medium format iso 400 (never mind using one of the t-grain 100 iso “grainless wonders”) on a Bronica system or similar is already giving oodles of detail. In pre-digital era that was the entire point of using MF over 35mm. So totally on board with you about the warmth of film, but given the topic of sharpness … medium format film is still what most would consider VERY sharp unless it’s a cheapo tlr or a Holga. Of course you might be spreading Vaseline all over a filter on your Bronica to get a soft look. I have no idea how you’re using the thing! Just thought it odd. I’ve seen photos from Bronicas and the like which are digital-level detail and sharpness! As I started out saying, for my taste MF is too detail-rich. If I’m going to shoot film I’d rather go down the 35mm route as the end result is so far removed from digital that these days it has a distinctiveness about it. As I also said, I have no clue how you use or what you do with the Bronica, so I am in no way trying to criticise! Just think it’s curious someone trying to get away from the sterility of digital not making a beeline for 35mm. Just musing aloud really. Don’t take my comment to heart! I know for some film shooters it’s not about getting grainy pictures to prove “this is film”. It’s more of an overall warmth thing.
Excellent treatise on sharpness being the end all in our pursuit of expressive photographic images.
I did not have such a frank and truthful representation of a certain school of thought, but real for sure, and the most quintessential, philosophically..
My favourite lenses for woodland photography are the Fujifilm 23 F2/ 35mm F2 and 50mm F2. In postprocess I always do negative clarity to create a more softer look. So how sharper the image before processing the more I use negative clarity . That softer look gives to me a more natural look to the images,
Photography is both an art and science, one of the reasons I like it so much. It is a technical art, that technical scientific side drives for perfection. At the start it is the technical side which you learn first, the art skill comes later. Now I care a lot less about technical perfection, the sharpness. If I were photography birds, or product, probably would still care. Whatever gives you pleasure is great.
Love the videos, often thought inspiring.
Point of order....for impressionist oil paintings I very much do walk up to an inch from the painting and look at the application of the paint to the surface. It's what makes those paintings so exciting, so visceral.
I'm a Lensbaby collector, one of the hardest things for me has been to let go of tac sharpness and try to get some unique dreamy pictures, not on all of my photos but on subjects that seem to lend well to that type of look. Look. I know you're not about gear but I have gotten really pleasing results from various Lensbaby lenses.
And yet we can get that tack sharp photo if we choose to shoot at a higher f-stop. I have quite a few as well but it’s the bokeh of the Twist60 and the Sweets that enchant me.
@@copperblue7 yes I'm entering that street dreamy look now for certain subjects. I still wouldn't do the pinhole and extreme soft focus Lensbaby optics. That's a bit too soft for me.
Fellow South African! - At least now I have some closure when I miss focus. I am highly critical of myself when I miss focus however people who view my pics do like them anyway. Getting sharp photos with fast vintage lenses is super difficult so not always easy to nail focus. It does bring some kind of character with a soft in focus face.
I think there is a time and place for sharpness and for softness. I love both when done right.
Your best video to date. I look back on my 60 years of photography and atmosphere, story, immersion in the scene is everything. Thank you.
Thank you
You are absolutely correct, I prefer photos that make me feel like I'm standing at the location.
Very interesting topic! I knew an old photographer that told me this funny story- he did all he could to gather good gear and train a good technique to get the sharpest images possible because back in the day it was "a hallmark of quality" - after all, poor gear could not get the sharp images no matter what. He on the other hand could control sharpness by creative defocusing. But again, he also got the kinds of jobs you talked about- portraiture and all sort of "atmospheric shots" -for weddings etc. Indeed clinical sharpness was preferred by younger looking folks while the older ones were asking for "clemency" in the shape of a "portrait filter" ...sometimes he really smudged a UV filter specially to get a stronger soft focus effect. So in my opinion- all of these techniques are tools. Filters, defocusing, effects or whatnot. We can find times and places for all- but we don't need to become slaves to them.
Last week my sister was searching for a wedding photographer- and she was recommended a local professional who post-processed everything with color grading and desaturation and added excessive grain. She asked about the possibility of getting other kind of images (non-ultra-processed) and the guy basically said no can do, it's my visual style. Yup, his and some million other kids' , since the 2000s?
Thank you so much. You have encapsulated in one video, my philosophy of photography. I like that term “cult of sharpness”, It expresses my thoughts on people who are slaves to sharpness.
As a painter, we absolutely do go as close to the painting as possible to see how the painting was rendered! That’s part of the fun, seeing what happens to the painting when you view it close vs far away, you get to experience the brushwork or lack of it and it gives you insight into the process of that painting, which is less apparent when viewed from afar. Other than that I completely agree, we worry about photo sharpness too much
As an older man who's days ahead are fewer than those behind, I listen to photos listen to what they provoke within technical skill is fantastic but it alone won't wake my heart.
I love seeing your photography books Alex. I would love to learn how to make soft, atmospheric images. All the images I love are like this but I’m not clever enough to work out how it is done. Thanks for sharing with us. ❤❤❤❤❤
It's interesting to read the comments. They often turn in to arguments about which is right, which is better. I think that kind of misses the point of your discussion. Some subjects need clarity and some subjects need atmosphere. Each photographer sees their subject in their own unique way. Either approach will kill the image if the approach becomes the end rather than the means.
This is a great topic.
Personally, I tend toward sharpness in my own photos. Usually this is because my goal is to create a photo the evokes the feelings I had when I was in the moment. More often than not (for me) this is best accomplished with as sharp an image as possible. But not always. A misty morning or in the gloaming, or a confused or uncertain frame of mind, or a very kinetic scene, these can often be better served by lack of sharpness. It’s just as you said in your comments on Andy Day. “When I look at his photographs they make me feel like I want to go walk there, they make me feel like I’m there, they give me that atmosphere that I get from actually being there.” Perhaps lack of sharpness more often evokes that feeling in some people. For me it’s just the opposite. Or maybe that’s just reflective of the things and places and times that happen to inspire me, they just happen to be better served by sharpness? But sharpness is always a means to an end, not an end in itself. I’ll gladly abandon the quest for sharpness if it will get me closer to the feeling I want to capture. As you said at the very end: “Whatever helps you to find a new way of expressing yourself in your pictures.”
In any case, a fantastic video essay. Thanks for posting.
Thank you for watching.
Fascinating discussion Alex and something that I have been thinking on myself. I am old enough to remember and have used cokin, vaseline on lenses and ladies tights stretched across the lens to soften an image. The conclusion I have come to is that sharpness is not required to make a good picture but is necessary for accurate recording ie nature or science. If it was essential in order to produce an image that is admired, that has atmosphere, that conveys something deeper than a two dimensional representation of a subject, the impressionist movement of artists would never have got started. The sterility of sharpness is driving photographers back to vintage gear, film cameras and older lenses, just as audiophiles are reverting to vinyl for the character of the sound. If producing a good image is your bag there is a place for sharpnes but also a place for softness depending upon the demands of the subject matter and the result you intend to achieve.
Hi Alex. Thank you for a very informative video. I always enjoy learning about the history of photography. Your “lesson” shows us by looking at the work of photographers from the past, we may gain a sense of where we are as photographers today. There is no substitute for learning as much as we can-from ALL photographers-past & present. No doubt, we will all continue to evolve as artists in the future as well. How blessed we are.😊
Thanks for watching.
What you describe , is why using a SONY Alpha ; I began adapting lenses , to search out a gaze or wandering , into light and separating elements , later I was and am ... enamored of 120mm and 4x5 , except my sheet film costs hundreds to get developed ... ouch !! Oddly , now I am back to the SONY and the rare older lenses that sing , but have fallen in love with 2 Leica bodies , the 0.72 M A , and my beloved 0.90 M 3 , the M3 being the most joyful camera I own , to clasp in hands , to organically with hope and planning , shoot the mystery of Light. My journey back into Imaging , over 10 years , has been in itself an education. Excellent video .
Thank you
There is no chosing just one :) It all depends on the mood/vibe. However, I do love the people that spend thousands of dollars on a lens, talkng about how incredibly sharp the lens is and then soften their photos in post , specially portraits.
Thank you Alex. This is a very important topic for many reasons but I think the most obvious one is that none of the modern first party lenses from the bigger camera manufacturers have character and neither do the likes of Sigma and Tamron. Most lenses have also become very big because of the endless pursuit of "optical perfection".
Yesterday I was at some lakes that I go to for bird watching. It was dull, drizzly, 2 degrees and no sun until about 3 pm. And no interesting or close birds. So I decided to try and photograph the lake on that day and catch the atmosphere. I manually defocused my camera to get the image with a 6x6 crop in mind. So pleased I did as I got one or two ok images. Then today I saw this video. Thank you for the clarity of your comments, so helpful!
Thanks for watching
You nailed it. Thank You so much. I enjoyed this episode so much , even more because You left the soft background music out.
Another great vid... what I love about cams like the Holga or the LC-A, is that they combine both that sharpness (to a small extend) with the soft focus atmosphere... with a Holga, if you get your distance just right, you'll have selective sharpness, with fall off becoming soft as you approach the frame edges...
I ❤this video! You presented me with different perspectives of sharpness vs softness; “atmospheric” photographs. Thank you for opening up my mind and not letting me think that there is only one way to photograph. ❤🔥👏🏽
That’s awesome. Thanks for watching
I love your approach which combines humanity and scholarship. Always inspiring. Thank you.
Thank you.
Great discussion about what makes a great photo without actually talk about it, but instead going after what some people see as the one unique thing that will make their photos great. Bokeh, sharpness, softness, saturation.
It's never none of those technical things that make the photo great.
You showed great sharp photos and great soft photos, some color some b&w.
Great video
Thank you so much - it's great to have you here
So glad you've covered this - I've been boring people for ages about how sharpness isn't important (unless it is). Basically judging the quality of an image on how sharp it is, is just a comment on the photographer's expensive lenses (assuming technique has been nailed) it's like saying "That Van Gogh's brushes were rubbish (if you see what I mean) Photography is not about equipment it's about lighting and composition and feeling. Though that's not going to keep the camera and lens manufacturers rich - 200mp next probably. I saw a video by an optometrist who showed that human eyes can't even detect resolution higher than 12mp - sh - don't tell Sony
Yes, a lot of this is driven by the industry - like some sort of vicious circle.
I've binge watching your videos. Amazing.
Very nice to hear you talk about pictorialism. The pictorialist William Mortensen has been my favorite photographer for several years. He has been a strong influence on my own photography.
I agree that sharpness is overrated. When I was a beginner I cared about it but now, sharpness has no value of its own for me. I find myself softening a picture as often as I sharpen one. It depends on the purpose of the picture.
Wonderful video....
I think that the sharpness hype is a way to sell more gear without even touch aesthetic questions which would rather let photographers think and feel and question instead of buying....
I often shot in the studio with one of the sharpest roll film systems ever made using Zeiss Softar filters. To get softer images.
Additionally it doesn’t take much to realize that some of the greatest images made throughout humanity are soft, or the result of, not mistakes, but of technically imperfect captures.
One of may favorite images I have ever shot if from a pinhole (lensless) camera.
Grain is a subject that should always accompany the sharpness discussion. Digital photography has changed how people look at what a perfect image is. Personally I feel like it is to the detriment of photography.
Softar filters were essential in my Hasselblad/portrait days. I love the soft and blown highlights. Interestingly, the filters don’t do much on my super sharp lenses on a digital body.
Very well put and expressed thanks. Another photographer remarked recently that with digital images he takes a little sharpness off and I think he has a point. Atmosphere btw.
The Risespray 35mm 1.6 on an MFT helped me to have fun with photography again. Also got a cheap m42 tilt adapter. Heaps of fun!
The industry / technological dimensions can't be ignored either. I'm reminded here of the cult embracing 'high-end' audio.... I have a stellar audio system, only decades outdated. I was interested to read a comparison between my classic ESL57 speakers, which i adore, and some contemporary equivalent. The 57s were a benchmark by which all else had to be judged, but against the modern speakers, they fell far short. I was even more taken by the fact that their shortcomings, as measured by the latest and most sensitive equipment, were most pronounced in the frequency range more usually experienced by bats and the odd freakish five year old child. Real world application? Mainly the production of insatiable desire in those who have the money, but not the neurological facility, to apprehend the extra few kilohertz on offer. Good vid / fireside chat, thanks - i'll be taking the Tele-Takumars out for a romp in your honour come morning. Cheers.
thank you, this point of view its been so helpful
Atmosphere with more soft focus is what I prefer. Sometimes sharp contrast B&W can be interesting as well.
Very interesting topic. I remember when I started 50 years ago, I was told that it is "un flattering when taking a portrate of a lady (especially a lady over 30 for instance) to make it sharp. A trick I used to use was to focus normally and then stick a strip of Sellotape across the lens-hood. This has the effect of doing away with laughter-lines and any other skin effect associated with growing old. It had the desired effect.
I think for a good number of years, Alex, that I was driven down the road of sharpness and the more pixels the better. I bought a bridge camera about four years ago and initially I was disappointed; the lens was soft and the dynamic range was limited and I went through many periods of blown highlights, fuzzy images and lack of sharpness. The more I watched professional photographers with their amazing cameras and amazing lenses, the more discontent I became and the desire for such amazing cameras and amazing lenses really took hold of me. I was seriously losing my direction, why did I love photography, was it the kit or the experiencing of seeing something amazing and freezing that moment in time. But what I didn't realise was that bridge camera had been teaching me all the time over the years. I learning to see and to have a better understanding of seeing. Through the frustration came little victories, not from the sophistication of my camera, not from what it had, but rather from what it didn't have; the gaps are what I had to fill in through practise, lots of practise, and the joy of those little victories along the way. I feel more in touch with being where I want to be and photographing something that brings me delight. The photographs I have seen by amazing photographers with amazing equipment still strike awe in me. But I've found that for me I need to be me and to keep on learning how to see through my own eyes. Thank you so much for this very poignant video. Sometimes the discussion of one theme has a way of clarifying not only the main topic, but to also introduce another thought that hadn't been considered. It is an excellent video, thank you Alex. PS for Sharpness or Atmosphere, I think I am somewhere in between.
I agree with your argument. All the same, sharpness always seems, to me, to hold out the (delusional) promise of being able to zoom in and in ad infinitum, till eventually something of merit takes shape within my picture frame.
Softness now, is something I have to make an effort with. The dividing line between softness and incompetence can be very thin!
I started shooting with my Nikon D3100 and two kit lenses, the 18-35mm and 24-105 Nikkors, having not had any advice from anyone or watched a single TH-cam video, while working as a tour coordinator for a travel abroad company. Some of my favorite images came from my travels then. Often they are underexposed, don't follow the "rules" of composition, and/or the focus is soft where it's "not supposed" to be. A few years later after a photography hiatus I was given an old Canon EOS Rebel SL1 and decided to make up for lost time as a photographer. So I immediately got obsessed with acquiring lenses- specifically the fastest glass I could find a way to afford, chasing bokeh, and insight-crunching massive amounts of content from photographer TH-cam channels about how to become technically perfect. I lamented not being able to afford L-series, Opera, or Sigma Art lenses to get the kind of tack sharpness I saw from other photographers. In the process, none of the mood or expression of my images came anywhere near the ones I captured with my old D3100. Then I watched a review video from Christopher Frost about the original Lensbaby tilt-shift lens and immediately ordered one from MPB. This brought back my self-trust about capturing atmosphere and expression in images first and foremost over technical perfection. The shortcut to this conclusion for anyone struggling with this dilemma would be this: Play with Lensbaby equipment (or vintage lenses) for long enough and you'll get over your internalized stigmas about sharpness as the be-all and end-all for good photography.
From my perspective, although I enjoy well done softer images, I wear glasses. I take them off, and my world is one big soft image.
For me, sharpness allows me to see the things my eyes can no longer see on their own.
An 8k image of a mounts range, where I can zoom in and clearly see someone standing on the furthest summit in the background, captivates me.
I do value what you've presented, also. There is definitely a place for that which you've highlighted in this discussion.
It's very difficult to make a good print from a bad negative, although I no longer produce negatives. I do still have my grandfather's film camera.
Wonderful discussion. This is something that I am trying to incorporate in my work right now.
I just bought a petzval lens. It is capable of being atmosphereic or sharp depending on how you adjust it. I believe that areas in an image that are sharp are a refuge for the eye and that soft areas are likewise refuge from the sharpness..
Thank you!
Good point about f.64 and their 'straight photography' being the beginning of our obsession of sharpness in our images. I would add that it really took off when digital photography became a thing and manufacturers were pushing ever larger megapixel capabilities which was really to get us to buy new gear. I'm hoping that the pendulum swings the other way as manufacturers understand that many of us want more atmosphere and less of a sterile look in our digital photos; more like film cameras.
I started photography about mid 80's and don't really recall sharpness being a thing until I got to photoschool in 94. So it must have been in the wings around then..
Atmosphere for me, too! And at the moment, I'm re-visiting using a cheap Holga lens on my DSLR, and having lots of fun with it!
This obsession with sharpness exists in boxing photography with everyone shooting at 1/1000 or above, but I've found my APC camera struggling in low light even at f2.8 and over time, I've found I can get great results with even 1/400, with some softness to the image and motion blur adding something more to the photos! Love your videos!
Thank you
I shoot random pictures with Ixus 85 P&S camera and I always set ISO so that I get exposure at around 1/50-1/60. I try to be perfectly still, but that thing still takes bizarrely sharp pictures that have this sort of light dusk, sort of weird unsharpness in sharpness. It makes things look like those 80s dreamy shots.
This can mostly be explained by the fact that most people don't appreciate photography as an artform but instead appreciate it for it's detail, especially people who aren't into photography.
Personally, I appreciate both, I pay attention to composition and the feeling the photo gives but I also like to zoom in and appreciate the detail.
I recently bought myself a used 48" 4k OLED TV that I'm proofing my photos on. If I were to print them, they're not going to really be bigger than that so as long as the image isn't obviously out of focus, I don't care about the individual pixels unless I start cropping. But on a smaller PC/laptop screen I think it's harder to get that sense of scale so you're more likely to zoom in to find focus.
Then again, I also go against the grain and use like f4 for landscapes.
Another great discussion. Loving the channel. Expression/Atmosphere would be my choice over sharpness. I started to learn about the history of photography using my local library and came across some great images from the past that were not sharp but captured something special. Still have to remind myself not to get stuck in a super sharp mindset. Keep up the great content.
Thank you for watching.