An image not completely sharps can be nice ? Some time we are the images that we judge nice, but not completely sharp. What is the sharp limit to define it nice and acceptable ? An image not completely sharp is always unacceptable ?
An image not completely sharps can be nice ? Some time we are the images that we judge nice, but not completely sharp. What is the sharp limit to define it nice and acceptable ? An image not completely sharp is always unacceptable ?
You seem to be asking when is it acceptable for an image not to be sharp? When taking images of people I find this can be so for probably 3 reasons at least.1.If you take an image of someone at a function, maybe a wedding, and they die shortly afterwards. The image you have may be the only one captured. It creates a memory and something precious to the family member even if it is not sharp.2.When I have photographed weddings sometimes I have captured a less than perfect image but the couple love the expression and the moment you have captured, the memory you have captured, is more important than the technical perfection to the person. 3. Sometimes I have captured a photograph of people in colour and they are not sharp but when converted to black and white the sharpness does not always seem to be that important.It creates a "mood" to the photo.Others can probably think of other reasons.This image does not do a lot for me not because of the lack of sharpness but more to do with the composition.
Thank you for you response. What you dont like on the composition ?
I think that I would have just gone with the picture cut down the middle and use the left hand side as my composition. To be honest the picture as it is looks lopsided.This is what I mean.
thank you
Just another thing Vito. It really is what you like. People make images with pinhole cameras and they use holga cameras as well which both are not sharp but people like the art they produce. There is even a filter effect on pentax slr's that simulates a toy camera(holga) look.It's also similar in music. Some people like digital sound where as I like anologue sound from vinyl records.Your composition as it stands Vito could also be useful if it were the cover of a book the title could go in the upper right hand space.The title could be "artistic photography" for instance.
for me the main subject should always be razor sharp
What about your landscape paintings Joseph? Are they always sharp?
Not necessarily....I get what your saying I guess I just see photography as a perfectionists medium instead of an expressive one. I mean I guess I've never seen a photographer pull a Jackson Pollock. I guess I just thought it was a more deliberate medium.
It isn't a perfectionist medium in my opinion. Think of the thousands of pictures taken on Polaroid cameras. Kodak instamatics. Box brownies. I will post some samples later on where I turned throw away images into what I regard as acceptable art. We are pushed to be perfectionists at the moment by manufacturers.
I was wondering about that myself some time ago.
Once I took a series of really blurred images of mine and made an exposition in my city which was quite nice. I called it (im)perfect. They were not taken unsharp on purpose but rather by accident of different kinds. But there were pleasing to the eye and you could see how blur added to the story.
I think if the image is pleasing to the eye and you can say that the blur is not cause by lack of technical skills - it's ok. It must have a reason.
I don't think it has a reason in your frame though. I would have it either sharp or more blurred to show it was windy.
It depends on the photo. If you're trying to capture the motion, of course a little motion blur is acceptable. However, something being out of focus when it's intended to be the subject or focus of the picture is unfortunately unacceptable to most. We've all been there, you set up your camera, take a photo, it looks great on the screen, you get home, put it on your PC, notice it's ever so slightly out of focus, and then die a little inside.
Failure is part of photography and a step towards success. I've had to delete photos that I spent a lot of time and money to get because my equipment failed me or I didn't take the proper time to check that everything was perfect. Don't fret about the past, use those mistakes to as motivation to keep getting better.
Also, it depends on how you intend to use the photo. If it's not completely pin sharp it may not be print worthy, but it will likely still work on things like instagram because... well... it's instagram.
I agree with Jordan, there are times when an image must be tack sharp... out of focus and/or camera movement will be obvious. But it's not a hard and fast rule. Soft focus works well on some subjects. Motion blur when panning, lens baby shots are a few examples. In this case, fog appears to be part of the equation. Fog has a natural softening effect as you are basically shooting through water suspended in air. I think opening up the shadows so they are not quite so stark might help here.
The answer to the general question of "when, if ever, is a less than tack sharp image acceptable" is... it depends. Sorry. And more over, it mostly depends on you. If you find the effect you have pleasing and it works for the goal of the image, then it's ok. If you hate it, then it's not ok. There are relatively few absolutes in any art, and as technology heavy as photography is, its no different. Experiment, look to others for inspiration, emulate, build up your confidence, skills, and reference knowledge for what you find acceptable. Ignore what everyone else says, including me! :P
I agree with you David except on one point."Ignore what everyone else says, including me!" We can all learn from each other. We can ignore the the things that are not helpful.
Ha! Just being flippant. But what I was hinting at was the idea to be critical of the advice (and especially the "rules") we receive from other photographers. This is a very personal craft and it's only your own impressions of your work that matter in the end. I build wooden boats occasionally (for fun) and when it comes to asking if you did a thing right in the craft we always say, "if it looks right, it is".
To me, the image doesn't always have to be razor sharp. Depending on several factors -- the scene itself, the processing, the "intent" of the photo -- a softer, even blurry image sometimes does more to convey your vision than a sharp exact replication of the landscape in front of you.
Just my opinion on this, I agree with Geoff about the crop. If this were my image, I would play with the colors and intentionally blur this to give it that "fine art" feel. I took a couple of minutes and really overdid it in photoshop (adding a blended layer of oil paint to give it a little more motion) just as an example of what I see in it.
At the end of the day, though, this is your image and your vision of what it should be. Keep working with until you're either happy with it or sure it's not a photo you want to keep.