Comments on: Unsharp photography http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702 Technical and artistic aspects of photography Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:39:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Libby http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702&cpage=1#comment-1195 Libby Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:53:01 +0000 http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702#comment-1195 So what should I do with my soft focus filters?? And I guess I should toss the Lensbaby too ;-) In one of my favorite images from my old film archives, I missed the mark slightly with focus. It still remains one of my favorite images. So what should I do with my soft focus filters?? And I guess I should toss the Lensbaby too ;-)

In one of my favorite images from my old film archives, I missed the mark slightly with focus. It still remains one of my favorite images.

]]> By: Chris http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702&cpage=1#comment-1191 Chris Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:53:46 +0000 http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702#comment-1191 I think we often photograph to record a scene as we see it, or think we see it in all its color and detail. I know my focused photos are sharper than what I can see but I am more critical of the details when looking at the image on my monitor or in print and therefore want all the sharpness and detail I can get. But I think that this detail is often not important but is just what I expect. I also think you are on the right track when you consider the importance of "tack sharpness" and how it relates to the image, some images benifit from this treatment, others do not. Its good to look at what characteristics actually improve an image, and those that are merely performed to meet our standards for quality. I think we often photograph to record a scene as we see it, or think we see it in all its color and detail. I know my focused photos are sharper than what I can see but I am more critical of the details when looking at the image on my monitor or in print and therefore want all the sharpness and detail I can get. But I think that this detail is often not important but is just what I expect. I also think you are on the right track when you consider the importance of “tack sharpness” and how it relates to the image, some images benifit from this treatment, others do not. Its good to look at what characteristics actually improve an image, and those that are merely performed to meet our standards for quality.

]]> By: eNoBlog http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702&cpage=1#comment-1190 eNoBlog Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:42:29 +0000 http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702#comment-1190 Comment by <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rundadar" rel="nofollow">Alex Glickman</a> posted from <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d90_d40_users_group_/discuss/72157622453687048/#comment72157622331811553" rel="nofollow">Flickr discussion</a> "I have an opinion on why certain technical things in photography (like sharpness, resolution, contrast etc.) are seemingly so central to many people in photography nowadays. My theory is: those things are the proverbial 'low hanging fruit'. Once we stop concentrating on those technical factors, we are left 'naked' and 'unprotected' in front of the far more profound and difficult to achieve things, that could be collectively called: "the substance". Substance is tough... It's time consuming, it's very difficult to define and even more difficult to capture. And it's so frustrating! "I've been shooting almost everyday for the last 3 weeks and not a single photo that I am satisfied with... Sometimes I feel like I've 'lost it' and should just sell this whole thing... The better one gets, the tougher it becomes to get a photo... USM is easy. Curves and levels and layers are easy. Substance is tough... but it's worth it, I think." Comment by Alex Glickman posted from Flickr discussion

“I have an opinion on why certain technical things in photography (like sharpness, resolution, contrast etc.) are seemingly so central to many people in photography nowadays. My theory is: those things are the proverbial ‘low hanging fruit’. Once we stop concentrating on those technical factors, we are left ‘naked’ and ‘unprotected’ in front of the far more profound and difficult to achieve things, that could be collectively called: “the substance”. Substance is tough… It’s time consuming, it’s very difficult to define and even more difficult to capture. And it’s so frustrating!

“I’ve been shooting almost everyday for the last 3 weeks and not a single photo that I am satisfied with… Sometimes I feel like I’ve ‘lost it’ and should just sell this whole thing… The better one gets, the tougher it becomes to get a photo… USM is easy. Curves and levels and layers are easy. Substance is tough… but it’s worth it, I think.”

]]> By: eNoBlog http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702&cpage=1#comment-1189 eNoBlog Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:34:15 +0000 http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702#comment-1189 Moreover, detail that matters, i.e., detail that helps convey the story and/or portray the subject. Detail for the sake of detail is just as pointless as sharpening to give the appearance of detail. Moreover, detail that matters, i.e., detail that helps convey the story and/or portray the subject. Detail for the sake of detail is just as pointless as sharpening to give the appearance of detail.

]]> By: eNoBlog http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702&cpage=1#comment-1188 eNoBlog Sat, 26 Sep 2009 04:33:14 +0000 http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702#comment-1188 Never thought of quite that way, but you're right. By selectively sharpening and/or blurring parts of the photo, one can emphasize and de-emphasize certain things. Never thought of quite that way, but you’re right. By selectively sharpening and/or blurring parts of the photo, one can emphasize and de-emphasize certain things.

]]> By: Doug http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702&cpage=1#comment-1187 Doug Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:35:27 +0000 http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=702#comment-1187 Soft pictures are not a challenge. Detail, as I see it through the lens, is. Soft pictures are not a challenge. Detail, as I see it through the lens, is.

]]>