My real objection is generalizations like "equipment doesn't matter". For some shots it doesn't matter and for some it does. My opinion is that for a great majority it does make a difference. Better equipment is far less likely to be inappropriate for a particular photographic situation than lousy equipment.
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- Steve Desjardins -- 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.
