selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Of course it does. When you are projecting an image from the enlarger, it also needs to be in focus.

Maybe you don't know how how HCB's negatives were printed.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Of course he knows, there isn't anything he doesn't know.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Yep! :thumbup:

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

NO ONE with any experience in photography would dare question the concept that it is the person behind the camera that takes the picture.

That is universally known and accepted, and is not in question.

The idea that sharpness or gear or any other aspect of creating a successful image would over emphasized by an experienced and knowledgeable photographer is probably not something that happens very often. Why? Because experienced photographers KNOW everything involved in the creative and technical process of capturing or MAKING a great image.

Just like experienced and knowledgeable photographers KNOW that the better their gear... camera, lens, tripod, film, developing/post processing... the BETTER ABLE THEY WILL BE TO CAPTURE OR VISUALIZE THEIR DESIRED IMAGE.

Dale Jr. would finish a race a LOT higher than I would driving my old truck. But then, Dale Jr. would be smart enough to know that he stands a better chance of finishing even higher in his OWN specially prepared car than in my old truck.

Gear DOES make a difference. That includes high resolution, sharp lenses, which can be critically important in certain images.

Rufus Loc: Puget Sound area, WA

Cholly, Well put.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Thanks!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Visualize their desired image??? - that is just bullshit. Equipment does not help you visualize. Where do you get that or rather what are you smoking? Equipment is overrated. Only rank beginners think equipment is the key to photography. Ansel's comment that the most important thing is 12 inches behind the camera is a confirming statement. Galen Rowell did not use the best to illustrate that point as well.

Come on Cholly post some images, show us your ability to visualize. Give us a link to your website. Or give us a vita of the gallery shows you participated in. What you don't have? What a surprise.... lololol

anotherview Loc: California

Effective composition and good exposure go a long way toward making a worthy photograph.

The degree of the sharpness of the elements in the photograph depends on the intention of the photographer as well as on the purpose of the photograph -- stating the obvious.

Personally, I prefer a lens that can produce plenty of sharpness in my photographs. Later, if desirable, I can always reduce the sharpening effect as needed.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:thumbup:

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

Here's the deal with portraits.
1) many people can take a sharp image and not do portraits well.
2) a few less people can do composition with sharpness and not do portraits well.
3) A lot less people can do light well and do the other two above.

Now things start getting more complicated after you do those three well consistently.(yes I didn't forget depth of field throw that in too)

Now you start getting into post work where you add contrast and selective color toning to match an expression or gesture to form mood. This is where the art of photography is and what separates good images from great ones.
The problem that many have is not understanding the difference between contrast and sharpness.
Sharpness can be reduced but you loose pixels. Many end up with a blurred facial mess. The order that things are done is important In professional retouching. That's why Portrait pro is so bad. That's why cliffs recommendation of imagenomics is a better choice for most...especially when you are starting out. Reducing sharpness in post is easy. Reducing contrast in post is difficult.
Comtrast can always be added in post but is very difficult to remove.
Contrast in B&W images can be added by adjusting levels of grey.
Contrast in color is much more tricky. More variables come into play for color and they all have to match with a gesture or expression to form mood.
Saturation differences between forgeound and background is one way that help define an images style and can help to form mood. Targeting specific colors and varying them slightly can also help form seperation and make overall colors of images work better together as well as create more contrast.
Most people are not color blind but very few are color aware.

The amateur way to help move the eye in a photo is to use a vignette. Most images I see with vignettes are way overdone. This brings up another post processing problem that I see which is the heavy hand. Many small changes are always better than one big one.

The best way to understand color is actually to watch a lot of modern movies.
Part of video production involves post work using color grading.
The idea of creating something that sets you apart involves not just what the camera can do but what the total package you bring to the table.

I thought I would post a couple of images that were very heavy retouched by hand. One black and white, one color with a professional level retouch and another colorized. Each image was processed to match the name.
Notice in the "Oil of Olay" shot that all the pores of the skin are intact. The image had a sharp base but light no matter how good we are never falls that smoothly in skin. You simply cannot do a retouch like that using canned software.
The images are large enough on the download to see detail but not so large to blow up... I downsized them substantially. I used to be more sensitive about this but they are already all over the Internet.

My advice to mostis....after you get the first three components right, work on being able to get an expression out of your subject and work on your color to add contrast. And...... Don't get contrast confused with sharpness.......

Best wishes and I hope this adds a little value here.
Russ

Oil of Olay

(Download)

Simple Man

(Download)

Wind of War.

(Download)

drmarty Loc: Pine City, NY

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

cactuspic Loc: Dallas, TX

The difficulty with talking about sharpness is that we are trying to isolate a single element of photography that involves many different concepts, such as camera stability, placement of the point of focus, depth of field, subject movement, lens resolution, the quality and direction of the light, color contrast in the scene, and luminosity contrast in the scene. All of the factors influence the perceived sharpness of an image and many posts pick out the aspects they wish to comment upon. For me, the key question is whether the key elements of the photograph have sufficient detail or is the eye left wanting.

Approaching it from a slightly different perspective, as photographers, we chose what to reveal and what to conceal, what to emphasize and what to deemphasize. Detail is one of the major tools we have to control eye movement across our images and control what the viewer focuses upon. Ultimately it is a subjective question. I suspect that on the great majority of shots, we would reach a concensus as to sharpness. There are other instance where the clarity of the detail at the points of interest is sufficient for some of us, but not for others. For my eyes, where I want to see detail, I want SHARP detail. To get my details sharp, I try to use the best optics I can afford, a high resolution camera, optimize my lighting, use the best techniques I can muster, and rely on my artistic judgment.

As a general rule, I don't think sharpness is given too much importance. It is a key tool in composing a compelling image. Of course there are some images that don't require tack sharp detail such as fog enshrouded scenes, intentional motion blur, etc. But if we are talking about a lack of critical sharpness due to failure to carry a tripod, too slow a shutter speed, misplaced point of focus, or poor optics, I think sharpness is not given enough emphasis. Ultimately the test is how the perceived sharpness works with the other components of the image, and whether the lack of sharpness detracts from the quality of the image.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

In these forums, the emphasis is clearly on the technology, megapixels, sensors, DxO ratings and alike. Most beginners and mostly those in these forums could not tell if an image is properly sharp or not. The LCD does not help with its limited resolution. Only in print can we analyze sharpness and then with a magnifying glass in hand from center to frame edge.

We are never drawn to an image because it is sharp. Light and composition is what creates a compelling image. If is sharp, that is icing on the cake but not the a required component.

If you look at the members postings of images. The are all pretty much sharp. The auto focus points of today's cameras from 0-399 makes if nearly impossible to miss the focus point and achieve sharpness. Few if any of the images are compelling. Most landscape shots which make up a majority of the posted images are nearly always at eye-level, centered and taken at mid morning, noon or mid afternoon. Missing are the emotional elements that come from light and composition. I sure would like more discussion on that than arguing whose sensor tops the charts.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

Mark said: I sure would like more discussion on that than arguing whose sensor tops the charts.[/quote]

You can, without any invitation, post any topic or question you want to discuss in several sections of this forum. You may also post any image you wish in FYC and begin a thread of your own that may or may not have anything to do with the topic in which your may have in interest. There are some heavy thinkers and doers in FYC. Not too many are dealing their own iron clad rules - there are a few - but most are open to respectful discussion.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:thumbup:

GREAT post jim... :thumbup: