After posting my comment i realized that a photographic image, in the terms that you're now using, can be too sharp as well. Using Boris's recent photo we can see that a photograph can be too soft (let's not get into subjective v objective arguments here), and that for some other instances, such as a portrait of a sweet old lady, the photo can be too sharp. Am I splitting hairs? maybe, but I don't think so, for just as other aspects of a photograph are more or less appropriate for a given image (color v B&W, cropping, contrast choices, choice of paper, inks, and so forth, the amount of sharpness one chooses may or may not be appropriate. Were there no such thing as "too sharp," there'd be no soft focus lenses, diffusion filters, or vaseline smeared on filters, images shot through a stocking stretched over the lens or photos made through scratched and fogged glass. Where would the Holga be? and that newish Baby-something-or-other lens that was mentioned here earlier.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 11/19/2004 5:27:09 PM > Subject: Re: PESO - Pinnacles 4 > > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Perhaps you meant that as a tongue in cheek comment. However, at least in > > digital photography, which is what we're discussing here, an image can be > > over sharpened to the point it looks unnatural. > > > > Shel > > Ah, you see...on the one hand, I'm talking about the "natural sharpmess" > of a lens, etc. > If you start talking about "sharpening," as an action, per se, you're > talking about an un-natural manipulation. > > So I believe... > > keith > > >>[Original Message] > >>From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Peter J. Alling wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Once again it doesn't look quite "real" to me. The edges are too sharp > >>>maybe. I won't analyze it in depth. > >> > >>I'm sorry, there's no such photographic description as "too sharp" ! ! > >> > >>keith whaley
