On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote: > On 11-01-26 1:37 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >> On Jan 26, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Bruce Walker wrote: >>> On 11-01-25 7:47 PM, Larry Colen wrote: >>>> Better equipment won't make you a better photographer, and one can argue >>>> that equipment that is too good at doing everything automatically can >>>> interfere with you becoming a better photographer. And while a good >>>> photographer can get great pictures with almost any gear, especially if >>>> you aren't overmuch worried about minor details like sharpness, the right >>>> equipment can allow almost anyone to get clearer photos under difficult >>>> lighting situations. >>> That's not a persuasive argument for either side, Larry. Achieving "clear >>> photos" has little or nothing to do with "great pictures". Clear photos >>> are desirable in technical manuals though. >> While there are exceptions to every artistic rule, unless your name is >> Knarf, clarity is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a great >> picture. > > I beg to differ, and offer just a few from an innumerable list of excellent > images with little or no clarity. These shots are not mine--all taken from > Flickr ... > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 > http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 > > And don't forget Christine Aguila's wonderful shot from the 2009 PDML Annual > (pg 9). Very low contrast, foggy, barely discernable bare trees in a > snowscape. Yet gorgeous; one of the most striking shots in the book. > > Too much clarity can spoil a shot. Very often you need to hide as much as you > reveal; submerge it in the shadows, unsaturate, untint or lower its contrast, > or defocus it; all reduce clarity. > > Clarity: not necessary.
OK, then working autofocus, or any focus, not necessary. Image stabilization, not necessary. You are hereby forbidden from criticizing a photo for poor focus, motion blur, or any lack of clarity. Or alternatively, you can read the first seven words of my sentence "while there are exceptions to every rule". What you've shown me are two exceptions: Sunday drive http://www.flickr.com/photos/booleansplit/3894430548 and the chase http://www.flickr.com/photos/ingynoo/4413415496 and five examples where sharpness are critical to the success of the photo. http://www.flickr.com/photos/minebilder/208387780 The sharp edges of the horizontal lines lend critical contrast to the blurs in the background. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/3134678910 I don't see anything that is at unsharp about this photo I wouldn't describe environmental haze lending depth as a lack of clarity. http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilbert/5179173922 Again, nothing unsharp about this one. A little environmental haze lending depth is all. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nikolaborissov/4119473858 I consider this picture sharp practically to the point of harshness. http://www.flickr.com/photos/silentrunning/3609986922 The leading edge of the flower, right in the center of the screen, is in perfectly sharp focus, and the razor thin depth of field lends depth to the photo. All of these photos critically depend on at least one element of sharpness to make them work. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
