There was just recently an enormous discussion in a newsgroup about some photo journalist as to whether his photographs were out of focus and fuzzy on purpose or due to a lack of craftsmanship. Some of his later work was in sharp focus. The discussion went on to, is photography art, is only technically perfect photography art, is only black and white photography art, can out of focus photography be art? There was also a lot of flaming and heated responses. Myself being a fanatic about straight photography, extreme depth of field, sharp focus and fine detail I always figured if a photograph was fuzzy and out of focus it was due to inferior equipment or lack of knowledge about the craft of photography. I can't imagine anyone doing out of focus work on purpose. I thought the battle between straight photographers and pictoralist was settled back in the '20s. If I remember right the straight guys, you know, photographers, won.

-- Dell Elzey (potog@mindspring.com), August 27, 1997

Answers

Dell, nobody 'won' anything. The sharp, well exposed, expressive print crowd just finds favor now. But just as the images of Witkin & Mapplethorpe have their place, so do the fuzzy, unsharp interpretive images of those who photograph them this way. It is a style and works well for those whose view of the world and how they interpret it calls for images like this, The 'winners' are those who print the way they want to express whatever it is that they feel. If that is how the photographer intends the image to be, it is fine. Better an image that is fuzzy and expresses the photographers heart than a technically perfect boring photo any day.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), August 27, 1997.

Sharp vs fuzzy focus

Ah yes, another classic encounter between 'artsies' and 'techies'. It shows the passion of photographers for their art/craft - whichever makes you happy. It would be interesting to actually ask this photographer what his intentions really were, that is if he is still alive. Dell it would be great to know the address of that newsgroup.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), August 27, 1997.

Dear Dan, Please disregard any photograph of mine because I am sure they are all technically imperfect and also boring. But could you point out a photograph that is technically perfect but boring. I have heard this many times even from Ansel Adams but cannot remember anyone actually pointing out a specific photograph. Thanks, Dell

-- Dell Elzey (potog@mindspring.com), August 27, 1997.

Sharp vs fuzzy

My problem with the technical side of photography is knowing exactly what 'technically perfect' means. I think sometimes perfect exposure and printing mainly adds aesthetic quality to a print much in the same way as a good frame and lighting. I guess it affects different subjects in different ways. Most BW landscapes would suffer terribly without razor sharp resolution. I'm glad you brought up the pictorialist school because I recently veiwed a few landscapes by a local photographer using the pictorialist style (or a modern version of it) and they were gorgeous. I would really like to learn this technique as I think it has been berated for long enough and there should be a place for all styles.

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), August 28, 1997.

Hi Dell,

I believe that 99% of my *color* slides are technically perfect--and boring. The remaining 1% go into my portfolio.

:-)

~mason

-- Mason Resnick (mresnick@idt.net), September 07, 1997.

I'd be interested to hear who the photo journalist referred to was. Robert Capa would fit. His 1944 photo, "D-Day, Normandy Beachhead" is blurred, with a soldier's face emerging from an ethereal sea, surrounded by monstrous armaments.

His "Death of a Loyalist Soldier", 1936, is a little blurred and certainly out of focus.

So the question is, would these photos have been "better" if they were crisply sharp? For my money, the answer is NO. They would lose so much impact, drama, excitement, horror.

Were they deliberately un-sharp? I find that question less interesting. I suspect that Capa was more concerned at the time about ducking bullets than the craft of photography.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), August 29, 1997.

I know this has been here a while, but for future note....those by Capa were sent back to the mag/paper he was working for, the were rushing to meet a deadline and processed at the wrong temperature. Most of the six rolls were lost, but the handful of images that survived are the ones you can see today. They do show the impact, drama, exitement and horror, but how good were the images that were lost?

I subscribe to the artistic side of the argument. It depends on what the photographer is trying to get the viewer to see. All of the above traits plus mood, scale, isolation, depth, and many other varied types of emotions and visuals.

A technically perfect shot can be boring and most are if they do just what is intended, record the scene. If you want to transcend that, then you not only record the scene, but give the viewer a sense of WHY you took the photograph......

Love this site!

-- John Mark Guest (mguest@bgoarchitects.com), October 04, 2000.

Actually part of the blurring on Capas D-Day shot may have been the result of the film melting due to an error by the film technician at Life Magazine. Very few images survived. But, the image is there & effectively conveys feeling-sharp of fuzzy. My big argument is simple. Without the ability to transmit feelings, technique is worthless in photography. It is the equivalent of 'school figures' in figure skating. Watch the skaters tracing, over & over & over, figures on ice and the judges getting on hands & knees & measuring the tracings in millimetres & you get the same thrill as from the prints from the "perfect black to maximum paper white is needed to have a 'fine print'" crowd. Sharp or fuzzy, if it conveys feelings-it is a good print.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), August 30, 1997.

The photographic masters of this backward part of the country, the bluegrass of Kentucky, Meatyard and Robert May and other members of the Camera Club even would move their cameras, or double expose film or change focus during an exposure and talk about the spirit entering the photograph and create some of the most powerful and important images of the fifties and sixties.These photographers knew exactly what they were doing they were technically correct. If you double, or triple expose film what is the correct exposure? May knew. On the other hand they would often rely on a bit of randomness or "luck' in their work. For the mystery in the process and the image. A little humility before the muses is occasionally generously rewarded....Hail Erato

-- jim Ryder (jim Ryder12@aol.com), September 06, 1997.

Right on, Jim!

For those interested, the original discusssion is in rec.photo.technique.art, thread title is "New Thread: Importance of Sharpness of Images". Much of the discussion is off-topic, but there are some wise words.

Without wishing to continue that discussion here, there are a couple of points that may be more relevant here.

Many (most?) practitioners would agree with the importance of learning technique so thoroughly that it becomes automatic, and you can then concentrate on the creative aspects. And having learnt what "correct" technique is -- achieving sharpness, tonal gradations, etc -- you can then manipulate these for creative ends. If you like, this is learning the rules so you can break them.

Don't get hung up on technique. There is no such thing as a "perfect" print (or "perfect" lens). You create what you want to (or need to) create. Keep questioning your creations. Would this print have been better if this corner were darker, or this bit were de-focused, or more blur allowed, or less, or whatever. Ask the same questions of other people's creations. Masters like Ansel Adams do change their minds, or realise that particular photos could have been better.

I have many technically correct photos that are boring. And many that were "experimental", in that I was bending the rules to see what would happen. And some few, very few, where it all comes together.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), September 06, 1997.

Sharp/Fuzzy

In photojournalism, the idea is to get the picture. Even if it isn't technically perfect, as long as the key players are recognisable. In sports photography, same thing, but sharpness counts more. This genre of photography is referred to as 'reportage' intended to inform, rather than to inspire. Even though photojournalists' works are exhibited in galleries, and many have coffee table books, I believe few consider themselves to be 'artists.' I know Horace Bristol doesn't. Even though some, like Salgado, may play to our cultural guilt, like "Mother Theresa with a camera (R.Singh) it is still reportage. Art, on the other hand, is intended to inspire. This is the only way to define art, by its intended purpose, certainly not by its success or failure at that purpose. The argument over 'pictorial' photography continues still, even though Edward Weston (who called it 'the fuzzy-wuzzy' school,) Paul Strand, and Ansel Adams argued eloquently for' straight' photogrphy. Stieglitz dedicated his life to getting photography accepted into art galleries. He was a photographer; his life partner, Georgia O'Keefe, was a painter. He knew the difference. But the definitive argument came from Berenice Abbott in her essay "It Must Walk Alone" published in the '50's. By following the vacuous school of Henry Peach Robinson, 'painterly' photographers denigrate the art of photography by aplogizing for not being 'real' artists, ie. painters.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 13, 1997.

In the previous entry, Michael says:

"Art, on the other hand, is intended to inspire. This is the only way to define art, by its intended purpose, certainly not by its success or failure at that purpose."

I find that a dodgy statement. It is one definition of art, but not one that is useful. If true, anyone can create art, at any time, with no requirement for skill or experience. So does the critical judgement of subsequent decades and centuries count for nought?

Michael implies that reportage photography allows out-of-focus, etc, but artistic (inspirational) doesn't. Well, I regard sharpness as one of the variables controllable by the photographer in order, ultimately, to effect feelings in the viewer -- inspirations, if you like. As such, differential focus can be used, with other effects, to direct the viewer's attention to different parts of the picture. And the elimation of detail, the deliberate destruction of focus, is yet another tool in our box.

Painting and photography have always had a love-hate relationship. Man Ray said "I paint what I cannot photograph, and I photograph what I do not wish to paint." Of course, in the early days, they were rivals, and attempted to emulate each other. In similar vein, digital imaging is currently imitating both. For a few decades now, many workers have combined photography in a symbiotic relationship: understanding each medium, they use the strengths of each.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), September 14, 1997.

Response to Andy's response...

Anyone CAN create 'art,' at any time with no requirement for skill! The definition I offered was for 'art,' specifically without trying to define 'good' or 'bad' art. "...does the critical judgement of subsequent decades...count for noght?" Well, apparantly. Jeffrey Koons has a career! Likewise the Douglas Brothers, Cindy Sherman, et al! "Michael implies..." No, I didn't; you inferred that on your own. My argument is against the pictorialist school. Many, but not all, use fuzzy focus, contrived sets, etc. in an attempt to imitate painting and drawing. For example, the photographs of Jerry Uelsmann are blazingly sharp, but they are plainly photographic knock-offs of Salvidor Dali paintings! This does not mean that I don't 'like' them; I do. I just consider this kind of photography to be anchored in the past! Black and white photography, by itself is surrealist. It doesn't need to be manipulated to succeed as art!!!!! I strongly suggest that anyone involved with photography as Art read the essay by Berenice Abbott refered to previously. These are MY opinions, I do not REQUIRE anyone to agree with them. Anyone who wants is free to use pin-hole cameras, toy cameras, poor quality lenses, or anything else he chooses to create what he considers 'art.' But when we have such superb tools and films, I only wonder why anyone would want to.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 14, 1997.

Should be "Alan" not Andy. Sorry, Alan.

(no message)

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), September 14, 1997.

Sharp or fuzzy?

Art, to me is subjective. Each "painter?" sees things through his eyes. My grandfather was an oil "painter" and I remember him looking at a B&W drawing/photograph and adding, and adding more flowers, people, etc. to the painting. What WE do is take photos of JUST WHAT IS THERE. How we print, focus, chose to convey our photographs varies from person to person but is, YET, art as we are using our knowledge and visual senses to display that which OUR eyes and mind see. Each of us can see one scene in many different ways and give a great photo while showing something others have missed. Why the question of art? WE ARE ARTISTS if we do our work well and properly. Wouldn't you agree folks?

-- H. David Huffman (craptalk@ix.netcom.com), May 12, 1999.

On "what is art", I think I had better drop out of that discussion. It is too vague a concept for me to attempt to apply to anyone's work. Especially if it is defined to be so easy.

My apologies, Michael, if I inferred what you did not imply. I've just re-read Berenice Abbott, "It has to walk alone", and agreee whole-heartedly with the polemic against pictorialism, defined there as "the making of pleasant, pretty, artificial pictures in the superficial spirit of certain minor painters." The essay goes on to decry "the primitive limitations of present-day, backward equipment". Hmm, most of my equipment dates from about that time (1951) because for what I do, which is mostly very sharp, umm, "realistic" B&W photography, it does the job very well.

BUT we can "paint with light", dodge and burn, use different lenses, use filters to modify tones, use selective focus, (selectively) tone the print, ... and these are "manipulations", just as moving the camera during the exposure, and allowing blur, are manipulations. Or even (gulp) diffusing the light. For me, these are legitimate photographic techniques. And "happy accidents" also have their place. For me, the picture is more important than the intention. Of course, my personal development depends on learning, which is helped by mistakes. Much as I love "straight" photgraphy, the spectrum is much wider than some people allow.

While I agree that "pictorialism" tends to keep photography in the past, there are other more pernicious influences at work now than in the fifties. To play the devil's advocate, I could argue that "straight" is as regressive in the nineties as "pictorial" was in the fifties.

Abbott's essay "Photography at the crossroads" (1951) seems even more apposite now. With digital picture-making (and publishing) technology moving extremely quickly, we are in for a very bumpy ride.

-- Alan Gibson (gibson.al@mail.dec.com), September 16, 1997.

Sharp vs. fuzzy

Here, here Alan. I couldn't agree with your statement about 'straight' photography more. I find that most 'straight' photographers are just as regressive and smothering as the pictorialists of the past. Smash your deep red filters! Destroy your densitometers! Free up your creative potential and let the 'Revolution' begin!

-- Andy Laycock (pbrlab@unixg.ubc.ca), September 16, 1997.

Find an object. Look at it without your camera.

Your eyes focus on that object. You don't always realize that your eyes blur all else outside your eyes' depth of field.

Is blurry or sharp reality? Or is the better question How sharp or how blurry should reality be?

Photography has more to do with perception than perfection. Go and view some of the most moving images you can find. They are not perfect. They could have been improved. However a moment wasted in perfection could cost the feeling of the image.

So I pose to you these questions:

Do you want quality or quantity?

Which is more important?

What are your deciding factors?

What do you, the artist, want vs. what the critics want?

Is focus more defining or is defintion more focused?

I wish you to sit and soul search these answers. Respond if you wish, but reply if you understand

KPM927@aol.com

-- Kevin Paul (kpm927@aol.com), October 30, 1997.

Deciding Factors?

I have read this whole discussion on "Sharp focus vs Fuzzy focus" and I tend to agree with you. I am a first year student in photography and am just trying to learn what to do and not to do. I just developed my first roll of 120 film last night. I had some real nice night shots of a church. When I processed my contact sheet I found that some were not in focus. One print inparticular was of the front doors w/columns lit only by hanging lights. This print was just slightly out of focus, but I couldn't ask for a better picture. It shows softness in the scene and depicts what I was really looking for. This was by accident.

What I am trying to say is that photography is like beauty "It's in the eye of the beholder." What ever is pleasing to your eye might not be to the person standing next to you. The critics be damned, if I like the picture that to me is all that matters.

Thanks for listening to me babble, Kevin

-- Kevin Finigan (kfinigan@swbell.net), November 13, 1997.

I believe sharpness or fuzziness are only means and not goals of photography. hence there are different styles, all are equally good.

In oriental graphic art, there were long debates about whether maximum likeness is a goal, the debate of "likeness in form" vs "likeness in spirit", and the general consensus has being: likeness in form is easy, likeness in spirit is hard.

For centuires, western painting strived to achieve great likiness, through the science of perspective, the study of anatomy, then when photography came along in 19 century, painters were shocked by the ease to achieve formal likeness, and the painting went to an entirely differnt direction, though impressionist, cubist, away from formal likenss in favour of expression.

All in all, it is a matter of style and personal preference. The classic school of painting finds its sucessors in sharpness school, ie, f/64 and zone school, pushing the hi fi art to a new peak.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), September 02, 1999.