On 11-01-27 12:23 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:16 PM, Bruce Walker wrote:
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.
Did you ever see the shots taken by that strange Czech dude Miroslav
Tichy, a guy who looked like Aqualung and fabricated cameras from scrap
plexiglass and cardboard? He took shots of women that, despite lacking
focus and anti-shake (or any other mod-con), are pretty compelling.
"[...] some of Mr. Tichy’s subjects assumed that his camera was fake.
The cameras certainly don’t look functional; he fashioned them from
shoeboxes, toilet-paper rolls and plexiglass, polishing the lenses with
toothpaste and cigarette ash."
Tichy: "If you want to be famous, you must do something more badly than
anybody in the entire world."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/arts/design/12photos.html
(Do a Google image search for him. Intriguing!)
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:
I didn't plan to spend all evening gathering 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.
You and I differ on a definition then. I define lack of clarity by all
of the antonyms of clarity. You define lack of clarity as simply unsharp.
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.
(Really?)
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.
Yes, agreed, there is *some* sharpness there, and it's critical where it
appears.
But you are fixating on sharpness as the single measure of clarity, and
I maintain that reduced clarity covers more ground than merely a lack of
sharpness. It also covers gloom and shadows, low contrast and haze,
distortion and noise. (It could even include obscured meaning of the
image, but I'm *not* going there. )
Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that clarity is /not/ good, or that
clarity is /never/ necessary. I'm saying that there are excellent
photos, and not just a few exceptions, that are low or very low on
clarity. For another example, take the very large body of work of the
Pictorialists. Look at The Black Bowl here ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
You've heard of the Group f/64? Where sharpness is _everything_? I am
not those guys. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64
Lots to think about anyway. Larry, thanks for inspiring this exploration.
-bmw
--
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.
