St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Why Sharpness is Overrated
https://petapixel.com/2017/04/03/why-sharpness-is-overrated

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

Thanks Steve for the article. No I will not feel too bad when I'm have a soft image😉

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

Interesting view point.
I will still try to achieve sharpness though.
Thank you for the link.

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Capture a sharp original image.
You can always make it soft in a more controlled manner in PP.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

The link did not tell us WHY, it just shows us that Sharpness IS overrated. Between this video and Nicole of Topaz's webinar yesterday, I i feel vindicated liking some of my shot that the "PixPik Dog's" would tear apart. Her starting photo #1 was butterfly in short DOF ended up beautiful art. Second was sharp of boy with baseball glove... sharp and she softened and smoothed to give a feel rather than a sharp reproduction... we can better identify with non sharp.... when in real life things are moving and we are moving and the eye focus is changing and the light is wavering and we do not see sharp... so SHARP IS NOT REAL LIFE

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

I feel a bit different:
Real life is sharp; anything else is incompetence or "artistic mutilation" on the photographer's part.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Agree that for documentation & science, sharp is sharp and is needed, but adding spice is good for food and fotos so ultra sharpness is not needed.... both have their place

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

The story i heard was that spice was added to food to cover the smell and flavor of rotting food.
Same thing goes for "de-focusing" an image;
a little goes a long way.
Softening specific areas of an image for artistic enhancement is great but
making the whole image fuzzy?...Not a real good idea.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I find all this so interesting that I have been compelled to write my personal impressions on it.
Photographers tend to record everything as sharp as possible. Sharpness has got to the point that many digital images are over sharpened during editing and in many of them halos are evident besides other artifacts.
Should all photographs be sharp? The answer is no since so many of them look so beautiful when they are out of focus or when a subject is moving and the picture is made using a slow shutter speed. Before I hear from someone on it landscapes in general benefit from sharpness and a good depth of field.
With the kind permission of the OP I am posting a photograph I made in my backyard not only overexposing but also keeping the subject out of focus. This photograph is a good example that sharpness is not always a welcome addition. Those are my feelings.
If sharp photographs is what someone prefer I have nothing against it but I continue to believe that the expertise and creativity of the photographer, irrespective of camera or lens, is what really makes the photograph be it sharp or not.

(Download)

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

So when you take a photo with a sharp subject and an out of focus background, is that incompetence or "artistic mutilation"? It's not the way we see things in "real life".

oldtigger Loc: Roanoke Virginia-USA

Don't get me wrong, all blurred, some blurred, or all sharp; each of them represent what our eye sees at any given moment.
None of them is anything other than reality, but and this is a big but:
Our eyes/brains shift and change and integrate a scene over a period of time and the image we "form" in our heads
will attempt to have defining edges or "shape", or separation of subject from back ground noise.
When the image you offer is so soft that it forces the viewer to constantly search for a focal point to rest on,
you introduce a stress that is often uncomfortable