Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: the blur

  1. #1

    Default the blur

    "sharpness is overrated". discuss.

    i see a few people perpetuating the idea that blur pictures suck, that every picture must have absolute sharpness, pinpoint razor sharp to be good.

    well here's my viewpoint; softness, OOF techniques can be used to bring out a mood, which is why you have always had soft focus filters in photography; and it is not limited to portraits. take a lot of this guy's pictures:

    you gotta say yes to another excess
    black melt

    in fact, just look at his entire set here. i think you'd be inclined to agree that yes, sharpness is overrated. also, he obviously has done it deliberately.

    art is subjective, and i hope all of us acknowledge that at the end of the day. so long as the message is conveyed, it doesn't matter what sort of equipment is used, a good picture is still a good one, there is by no means any measure as to how it can be good, least of all by any sharpness meter. cheers.

  2. #2

    Default Re: the blur

    more blur photos that i thought had artistic merits

    ...leave a message...
    .
    the blur
    untitled

  3. #3

    Default Re: the blur

    someone's opinion on the net here that i quite like

    Ranting on Sharpness
    Contributed by James Haney
    Last Updated Friday, 08 June 2007

    Why I think that the obsessive pursuit of sharpness is grossly over emphasized.

    Submitted for debate: Sharpness is overrated.

    Slavish pursuit of sharpness is the crutch of the visually weak.

    The pursuit of sharpness is the essence of missing the forest for the trees.

    I know that it is generally good and an obvious expectation for photographs to be in focus, but I guess I have just matured to the point that I think that pursuing sharpness gets in the way of more important elements of making evocative images.

    I have found more great images that are technically imperfect than I have found in all of the technically perfect images I have seen.

    I was like most budding photographers when I was younger. The struggle of achieving technical competence makes you a slave to the technology and frankly focuses one on all the wrong things. The greatest struggle in the art of photography is not achieving technical competency, it is getting beyond technical competency. True, the focus of my subject matter changed from trees and rocks to portraiture, but I really don't think that matters.

    I liken it to the difference between a pianist and a composer. One can perform great music, the other creates great music by understanding the nature of the instrument and pushing it to its limits to make something new and original. Do this: look through a bunch of photo books and find some work that you really admire. Now, notice what percentage of them is sharp. I was stunned when I did this exercise. At least 75% of the portraits I consider to be the best would I identify as sharp.

    Ask yourself some questions:
    Does the lack of sharpness detract from the effectiveness of good images?
    Does the lack of sharpness contribute to the effectiveness of good images?
    What makes an image great to you?
    Can you find common elements that you are responding to?
    What are your images saying?
    What do you want them to say?
    Pursue perfect images, not perfect technique.

    A perfectly exposed, contact printed 8x10 negative that carries focus from foreground to background, has great tonal range, beautifully printed on silver rich bromide paper, archivally processed and selenium toned may be hard to do, but that doesn't make it art!

  4. #4
    Member/Tangshooter
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    ClubSNAP Community
    Posts
    3,118

    Default Re: the blur

    very interesting..thank you for sharing..
    This is an electronic post which requires no signature.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Some equitorial, tropical isle
    Posts
    2,398

    Default Re: the blur

    Blur images from camera when Photog wanted sharp = sucky camera/lens

    Blur images from camera when Photog wanted blur = good camera/lens

    Blur images from camera & photographer which makes you go "Wow" = good photographer with good camera/lens


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sengkang
    Posts
    2,156

    Default Re: the blur

    looking at blur images make me headache and giddy as if seeing things without my spectacles.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,688

    Default Re: the blur

    There is a japanese photogarpher (Hiroshi something) who took out of focus images of iconic buildings years ago.....despite the blurriness, one could still see what building it was.

    HS

  8. #8
    Member/Tangshooter
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    ClubSNAP Community
    Posts
    3,118

    Default Re: the blur

    Quote Originally Posted by hongsien View Post
    There is a japanese photogarpher (Hiroshi something) who took out of focus images of iconic buildings years ago.....despite the blurriness, one could still see what building it was.

    HS
    Try do that in CS and see wat u can get..
    This is an electronic post which requires no signature.

  9. #9

    Default Re: the blur

    Quote Originally Posted by hongsien View Post
    There is a japanese photogarpher (Hiroshi something) who took out of focus images of iconic buildings years ago.....despite the blurriness, one could still see what building it was.

    HS
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer_workz View Post
    Try do that in CS and see wat u can get..
    Whose problem is that? Does the "criticism" of a bunch of ignorant shooters bother you?

    I won't say sharpness is over-rated per se, rather that the problem is that people don't think before they shoot.

    For instance, too many sports pictures here are shot frozen at 1/1000, creating people who seem to stop in mid-air, often with funny expressions. The photographers basically just shot on P, and delegated the choice of aperture and shutter speed to the camera. They never thought deeply about what they wanted to show. Would pictures with motion blur express the intensity of the game better? Would panning create a better way to show the sport?

    Lets put it this way-- if you can show good motion blur in a picture where the context is appropriate, I think even the armchair critics here will have no ground to "criticise".

  10. #10

    Default Re: the blur

    OOF does not equate to soft focus.

    Images can be soft, and for portraitures, some degree of softness, can be extremely pleasing. However, focusing must still be precise!!!
    deadpoet
    my portfolio

  11. #11
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: the blur

    Actually I don't find anything good about this guy's two pictures you've linked.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    "sharpness is overrated". discuss.

    i see a few people perpetuating the idea that blur pictures suck, that every picture must have absolute sharpness, pinpoint razor sharp to be good.

    well here's my viewpoint; softness, OOF techniques can be used to bring out a mood, which is why you have always had soft focus filters in photography; and it is not limited to portraits. take a lot of this guy's pictures:

    you gotta say yes to another excess
    black melt

    in fact, just look at his entire set here. i think you'd be inclined to agree that yes, sharpness is overrated. also, he obviously has done it deliberately.

    art is subjective, and i hope all of us acknowledge that at the end of the day. so long as the message is conveyed, it doesn't matter what sort of equipment is used, a good picture is still a good one, there is by no means any measure as to how it can be good, least of all by any sharpness meter. cheers.
    Last edited by vince123123; 16th November 2007 at 12:14 PM.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: the blur

    How come so far no one has shot the carshow girls with blurness?

    I'm sure some would have unsteady hands and steam over the spectacles.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    3,688

    Default Re: the blur

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Actually I don't find anything good about this guy's two pictures you've linked.
    Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I find many of them quite nice.......simple, and he has quite a good composition

    HS

  14. #14

  15. #15
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: the blur

    Yeap, each perception of beauty is different I was merely stating my viewpoint.

    Quote Originally Posted by hongsien View Post
    Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, I find many of them quite nice.......simple, and he has quite a good composition

    HS

  16. #16
    Senior Member Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Blue/Green Planet
    Posts
    1,854

    Default Re: the blur

    I remember a past CS member (student) showing many great examples on the subject of sharp/non sharp.
    Time, is an effortless construction :)

  17. #17

    Default Re: the blur

    Quote Originally Posted by Zplus View Post
    Blur images from camera when Photog wanted sharp = sucky camera/lens

    Blur images from camera when Photog wanted blur = good camera/lens

    Blur images from camera & photographer which makes you go "Wow" = good photographer with good camera/lens

    lol, seems like bs logic to me, shouldn't it be 1)technically lousy photographer, since nothing to do with camera/lens, and 2) technically sound photographer? hehehe.


    Quote Originally Posted by Paul_Yeo View Post
    looking at blur images make me headache and giddy as if seeing things without my spectacles.
    nothing wrong with that
    for example, i look at mona lisa and i feel giddy, but it is still art
    sometimes, when i see a pretty girl and i feel giddy, but she is still pretty!
    Quote Originally Posted by hongsien View Post
    There is a japanese photogarpher (Hiroshi something) who took out of focus images of iconic buildings years ago.....despite the blurriness, one could still see what building it was.

    HS
    hrm, do you know his full name? shall do a quick search later on and see what the net turns up.
    Quote Originally Posted by blazer_workz View Post
    Try do that in CS and see wat u can get..

  18. #18

    Default Re: the blur

    Quote Originally Posted by waileong View Post
    Lets put it this way-- if you can show good motion blur in a picture where the context is appropriate, I think even the armchair critics here will have no ground to "criticise".
    while motion blur IS a type of blur

    i'm actually thinking more on the seemingly deliberate oof pictures here

  19. #19

    Default Re: the blur

    Quote Originally Posted by Deadpoet View Post
    OOF does not equate to soft focus.

    Images can be soft, and for portraitures, some degree of softness, can be extremely pleasing. However, focusing must still be precise!!!
    so what did you think of those oof buildings that i linked? or did you ever look at them at all

    in any case, if i may try to paraphrase what you are saying, soft portraits are fine to you, but the softness must be within the control of the photographer?

    what do you think of this?

    or this?

    or this? <-- contains nudity, btw, little boys and girls please don't click (i bet this induces little boys and girls to click even more, but it is blur so i guess it doesn't matter)

    or this?

  20. #20

    Default Re: the blur

    teehee you are asking someone who does not have much affinity for extreme abstract photos.

    to me, the patterns are messy, so no, i won't count those, i'm sorry

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •