After a photo shoot, most photographers cull through their images on their favorite software. During this process, images that stand out are kept for post-processing, and rejects are thrown away. But what exactly constitutes an image worthy of making the cut?
90 percent of photographers are willing to admit that not all of their images come out tack sharp; the other 10 percent are likely being dishonest. When culling through a test shoot from this past weekend, an image really stood out to me, though it was a smidgen out of focus. This photo had me thinking: "What exactly qualifies as a 'keeper' image?" Does it have to be 100% razor-sharp? Or does overall composition, lighting, and expression hold more value than sharpness?
The example shown above begs the question: if you saw that the eyes were slightly out of focus, would this be a winner or a throwaway? As you can see towards the edges of the image, the photo is back-focused slightly; we're talking millimeters here. Now, probably due to my own error, I must have inched forward just enough when the focus was locked down, and you can also tell I was shooting at a wide aperture.
I'm an advocate of the idea that sharpness is crucial to an image’s quality or lack thereof. I would say the majority of my final images are indeed sharp; especially in the eyes. But in some cases, is it acceptable to have an image that may be slightly out of focus make the cut? I believe that as long as an image’s composition, lighting, and expression is strong enough, it is acceptable to use that photo.
Ultimately, I decided to go forward with processing the image and I am satisfied with the outcome. The model, Hannah, pulled off a wonderful expression that was very strong. I was more than content with the expression, lighting, and composition. If I were to nitpick, I would have liked the forehead and maybe even the nose to have more texture, but since the focus slipped and I was using a wide aperture, that is not the case.
That being said, I would like to ask you: What criteria do you look for when selecting your images? Does the image have to be 100 percent sharp? Or, is it a combination of composition, lighting, etc.?
my OCD cannot allow it!
Only if there wasn't a close enough runner up. I shoot a lot of extra frames so I'm usually fortunate to have one that cuts the mustard.
Right there with you Justin... My OCD drives me nuts.
I run into this often and my response is "how/where is this image going to be displayed?"
If it's going to be used primarily online or on a billboard, then critical sharpness (of a face) is usually not noticeable. So, as much as it pains me, if I shot something like your example photo, the pose/composition would win.
If the image is going to print (catalog, magazine, poster, display, etc.), critical sharpness would be more important and I'd suck it up and select a different shot.
I'm with you on this one, I'm nowhere near the level of photography as a lot of the other people on FS but sharpness is everything for me. No matter how good my composition and exposure might be, if it ain't sharp - it ain't happening.
would be nice but composition, lighting and how it makes you feel can balance out not being tach sharp.
[citation needed]
Even if this were an HCB quote, street photography is far removed from, say, studio photography. If you look at the work of top street photographers there are often plenty of oof shots; it's an accepted practice.
"sharpness is a bourgeois concept" -Henri Cartier Bresson
I'm skeptical about this citation...
Which was a facetious comment Cartier-Bresson made in jest, referring to the fact that age had made his hands shaky.
It was never intended as the excuse for sloppy technique today's photographic "artistes" have made it.
Says the Leica shooter :)
I think it depends on the type of photography you are doing. My hobby is candid street so sharpness comes third after content and composition
since most of my photos are this sharp anyway, I'll say composition, lighting and story come first, I was a tack sharp searcher freak, while I try to get the photo technically correct, I worry more now to get the moment, actually, I'm hired based on this most of the time, not the sharpest photos in the market but clients tend to love them anyway.
Agree with you there, I tend to be a pixel peeper at times but in reality...will the majority actually notice?
It depends, you cannot get away with OOF product shots in most cases. When shooting people, there's more leeway. With a casual outside shot like the one in question there's a little more leeway but IMO the eyes should be in focus. If this is the A#1 best shot then go with it and let the other things (lighting, expression, etc) make it special. If it was a higher production with more complex lighting or posing etc. then OOF is a fail.
It also depends on the client and the final product, too. If its a controlled environment, there isn't much of an excuse for a not sharp image, but otherwise, like others have said, I love a well composed, emotional shot slightly out of focus better another that is less so but sharp.
I think it's absolutley vital to have the OPTION to have tack sharp images. Some modern portrait lenses can work against you with their sharpness. The 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor G immediately comes to mind. While it is incredibly sharp clear across the focused plane wide open, it does so by sacrificing the very reason you use a lens like this in the first place, bokeh. The 85 G has a stratified bokeh that is unfortunate. The previous D model, while not as perfectly sharp, has exactly the kind of desireable bokeh that is the reason you shoot with a lens like this in the first place.
which is why I refuse to ever give up my 85mm D series.
As Frank Doorhof says, if your image isn't perfectly focused, change to black and white, crank the contrast, add some grain; you get instant art.
For me that example image is out of focus too much and would be culled. Sometimes however if the image is only going to be for web and the expression and everything else is amazing I'll accept a small mis-focus. A wedding situation might be slightly different however where the emotion of the image comes first and because things move so fast accidents happen. So I suppose it depends on the occasion and where the final image will be displayed for me.
depends per image. this article reminds me of this photo of mila kunis in esquire. completely out of focus and camera shake involved here but overall it's a nice shot of a nice looking chick that made it to print
This is a good example of how the "degree" of sharpness helps to determine the intention of the photographer. If a photograph is wildly blurry and de-focused, then it's reasonable to assume that the effect was intentional on the part of the photographer. Ellen Von Unwerth and Paolo Roversi are well known for shooting in this manner.
The problem comes when a photograph has only a slight degree of softness because then it looks like the photographer was actually trying to get it sharp and failed. The average viewer will rarely notice if a lens was focused incorrectly so it's possible to get away with it from a practical point of view. But, it's definitely sloppy on the photographer's part and people that are serious about craftsmanship should always look at it as a sign of a hack.
In the end all you need is someone like Mila and they will say "What was out of focus?"
To me that one is overly out of focus, especially for a big print publication like that. If I can tell it that much on the web, then it probably looked worse on the page.
For this image I would be able to sharpen so that any client (not commercial) would never know. For time it's faster just to reject, but if it's a great shot, I sharpen these and give to clients.
Great to hear everyone's feedback! Sounds it comes down to a case-to-case basis relevant to what your shooting and who you're shooting for.
I think Hannah is beautiful and it's a very nice photo. Would have I liked it a bit sharper ? Yeah of course, but this pic is a keeper for me. Good job.
Thanks Oliver!
unless your taking bigfoot pics. then they are required to be out of focus.
When you can't figure out why yours aren't, yes
I think its beautiful, definitely a keeper for me. It has almost an silky-like texture to it, reminiscent of old minolta lenses. More of these and it could turn into an interesting series "almost sharp portraits".
Sharpness is not always necessary. There is more into it in image and that is why some special portrait lenses exist! In case the portrait is more simple in terms of composition and lighting such the one you showed I would expect the eyes to be sharp since my eyes went straight to the cheek area in the first image without even looking at what was properly in focus in close zoomed up version bellow. And I love my 58f1.4 wide open but when I miss my mark and there is nothing emotional or special in the shot it simply does not make a cut for me, even if I wanted to find and excuse for myself not being precise during shooting :) just my 50 cents how I see my work...
why is a picture worth a thousand words? Because it tells a story that the viewer can relate to. For me its about composition, only photographers are going to be concerned about how sharp the eyes are. Most of the photographers today would not consider posting an image from 50 years ago, because its not "tack sharp". Tell the story, leave your mark on humanity other than the eyes were "tack sharp".
Sharpness is not top of my list, but it is there. The other day I did a shoot with my normal lens, my old Canon 70-200 2.8nonIS. Its not going to win any chart shooting awards, but I am always happy enough with what I get from it. I had my Canon macro 100mm 2.8 (normal, nonL) and took some images with that int he middle of the shoot. I know in my head, this lens is sharper, but sheesh its a big difference when I am zoomed in doing d&b. NOW... in the final result, does it REALLY matter... HMMM not really. BUT, if ALL other things were equal (and they never are...) I would choose the sharper lens.
Now, am I going to sell my 70-200mm nonIS for the new 70-200mm 2.8 IS II because it is so much sharper? Probably not.
agree with 70-200 IS first generation. Also switching for IS II
Expression is paramount. Lack of sharpness is a price paid for shallow DOF. I often shoot at f4 just to get that extra bit of safety. As I usually use strobe, motion is not an issue.
Still, I get images that are a bit soft periodically.
it's part of my life... I mostly do one-second light-painting. My pictures will never be as sharp as most of the others. I see a huge difference in sharpness when I compare with my non-lightpainting images. How many negative comments I had about sharpness so far? zero.
The Canon 50mmf1.2L (never in focus ever) or the Sigma 50mmf1.4 (tack sharp) I prefer the Canon 50L....the rendering of skin tones and highlights, the bokeh, the way the raw files respond in post. The Canon 50L is like a 60's Neve tube microphone pre amp. The Sigma is like a modern MAudio microphone preamp.
Totally depends on final usage... If it is just for me, or if the client likes it I will use a slightly out of focus image, but if I am entering it into competition it will never fly...
For me it depends on the type of shooting. For model tests/portraits and street it's OK to be slightly out of focus.
But for beauty, which is a 80% of my shootings, it's "no go". I'll dump face expression for sharp focus on makeup. Yes sometimes it's a really hard decision.
It's the story, I once had a family shoot where the family had a touching moment with his baby daughter. It's not something that could be redone and the focus was slightly out but the image stood on it's own because of the connection between father and daughter. Plus to be fair, most people don't look at a image and say that's sharp they just it to be a great image of themselves.
If you're doing a client fashion or product shots, not the artistic concept shoots, then sharpness and detail is everything but for many portrait situations a little softness can be kinder to clients skin.
I'd probably struggle with this myself but ultimately I probably wouldn't have used it. If it was purely for social media use then it would likely be fine as the lower resolution would hide the missed focus. If it was for a client I'd be worried about the possibility of it being printed and the lack of sharpness becoming more apparent.
Its probably delving into another topic entirely but this reminds me why I'm often reluctant to show a client, model etc shots on the back of my camera as I'm shooting. I was in a situation a few years back where I was shooting with a model who had hired me to get some updated portfolio shots. She was very eager to see the shots on the back of the camera. As a result of showing her she picked out 2 or 3 shots that she loved and insisted these be in the final selection. Of course her favourite of them was not in focus (I was shooting with a 5D mkII at the time so I should have known better) and it resulted in a mini drama where she still wanted the shot included. I included it as I'm not in the habit of declining paying clients requests, but that's a shot that a client has with my name attached that I really couldn't stand by, which is far from ideal.
Reading through the comments, I'm reminded that so many family portrait clients say my photos are "clear", not "sharp". I always find this amusing.
I often cheat when it comes to this. I will take sharp eyes from another scene and 'shop it onto the composition I like the best. Works most of the time :)
I shoot MF film and portraits/fashion/doc...I used to care about sharpness, but now i like slightly out of focus images or blurry ones. pick up any magazine with meisel or roversi in the last 20 years. content content content wins.
For personal non-commercial use maybe... for commercial, portfolio, web publication ... no go.
move the clarity slider +100... jk
Composition and lighting always have to be correct. Sharpness depends on the subject and the "look" you're going for. When I used to shoot film, and models, I often used a soft focus filter, so being a little out of focus would be like using the filter.
Have Fun,
Jeff
For me this is a pretty easy (nonetheless frustrating to have to make) decision when culling. If I missed my focus it means just that, I "missed", and I didn't capture what I was intending to capture in the way I intended, and I throw it out.
And yes, I've had several moments of heartbreak when I have a photo that's been wonderfully composed and lit but the focus just didn't cut it, but it's still a deal breaker for me.
All that being said, I think there are photos (such as this one) that are still "passable" depending on where the final image will ultimately live.
I agree, I pretty much cull that way 99% of the time. Just rare occurrences (like this photo) I tend to be more lenient, especially if it's just a test shoot.