The sharpness or lack of in a photo is a function of its subject and creative intention. Some photos are made better by lack of sharpness, emotionally improved by it but also some photos are improved by sharpness. It's a transient component in a photo, as is depth of field and focal length. None are constants but all are used as artistic tools, and all have their place. Certain styles or subjects are improved with a sharp photo, some styles or subjects suit and work better with a softer image. Just as sharpness isn't required to make an image stronger, also the opposite is true that some images are less compelling and work less well if they are soft. If you are aligned to a certain style that works as many times as it fails with a soft image then there is more leeway with the sharpness or lack of it.
Agree with a few of your points, however, the article was mainly about the obsession with ultimate digital sharpness being paramount and how some photographers have lost sight of what's important with regards to images and how people are obsessed with readin DXO reviews and sharpness ratings for lenses and makin the purchase based on that, often foregoing aesthetics, mood and feeling for technical 'perfection'.
It also suggests buying a fixed lens camera as they are super sharp, so a strangely structured article which is allegedly about the error in the ways of sharpness obsessed people. 1. Softer lenses often have more soul 9. Buy a camera with a non-interchangeable lens "These non-interchangeable lenses are generally very compact, thin, light, and very sharp......" So what is the point of the article? Don't obsess on sharp.......buy one of these they are sharp. Seems more a case of his point is don't obsess over gear, rather than about sharp images.
Sharpness if you want it is important. Interesting photos are importanter But yeah - some good points raised there - and there ^^^^ For me - if you desire sharp and don't get it - that's error. If you desire softness and get it - that isn't. If you meet your objectives I find it hard to class that as "wrong". It's all in my sig
Agree with that. ...and add only that if you're togging for a client, you can argue all you like about your artistry but if they don't get what they want, then they won't give you the gig again. I just hope my comments on people's shots (digital, film, whatever), when they refer to focus, are taken in the spirit of interested and pally chat.
Again, very valid points. I like a good discussion like this. The bit about shooting for a client though.....I now don't shoot for clients who try and tell me what they want when that's not something I do. It's ok to tell then that you're not the photographer for them. I want them to hire me because they want what I do. I know that doesn't suit everyone but it's nice when it can work that way. I've quite happily told people who've shown me shots like that that I won't do them.
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - Henri Cartier-Bresson I will only say I was once in a forum with an American guy who had two very expensive Canon bodies and literally over two dozen lenses. Then he got into Leica and had one body and around eight lenses. He had a passion for sharpness, but I could never look at his images without thinking I risked cutting my eyeballs on them...
