Is razorlike sharpness a really desired virtue for B&W

[SJP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mere "sharpness" i.e. more resolution presumably improves rendition complex textures, like skin, wood, textile. Whether some parts of the image are out of focus is another matter altogether.

 

That is what I have against the ultra high iso cmos sensors, there is no texture left due to the on chip noise reduction algorithms.

 

Of course the human eye in daytime has a large depth of field and indoor/evening (incandescent light etc.) the DoF is noticeably shallower. Personally I find a shallow DoF to be more natural esp. in evening light conditions.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[masjah]

I think that "sharpness" is actually quite a fuzzily defined word. I think it means very different things to different people. I've had my film images sometimes described as "not completely sharp" at my local photographic society, when they are completely in focus, and showing a wealth of fine, relevant detail (for example in a "record" shot). But some people seem to be after a certain "look" - not completely oversharpened, but heading a bit in that direction. To me, it's that look that makes an image reminiscent of a late Matisse paper collage, with almost artificially defined edges, and I really don't like it (perhaps that's why I still use film!). But I don't think that's got anything to do with the performance of a superlatively good lens. The thing about Leica glass to me is the overall balance fo all the different factors which make up the overall look. In that I still believe that they are unrivalled. If I didn't I wouldn't spend the ridiculous amount of money on them that I do.

 

Sorry for the rambling, or if I'm not clear - it's hard to put into words, but I hope people understand what I'm trying to say!

[larsv]

I think that sharpness is a very personal requirement. An image to me, is also imagination. Meaning that timing, framing and content is more important. In certain landscape, product, architecture and technical shots (or in other words purely reproduction) I can see that sharpness (no blur) might be important. Most shots to my taste don't loose their attractiveness by being less than razor sharp.

[Peter H]

I entirely agree with Bill's earlier post.

 

Seriously, none of us is limited by the inadequate quality of the pre-APO Summicron 50 lenses.

 

But many of us are limited by our own inadequacies either of technique or more often and far more importantly imagination, which the sharpest lens in the world will do absolutely nothing to supplement.

[Paul J]

In my opinion there are no rules for anything. Sharpness, like any other lens characteristic, IMO, is really dependant on the image, the photographer, the story.

 

Sharpness is a concept that suits marketing departments trying to sell you more lenses. It is something they CAN improve on and continue to. You can see the difference between a soft and a sharp lens so it's easy to tangibly sell. They sell a lot more lenses because it it. Don't get me wring I do love razor sharpness when it suits the image but just the same I also love to make soft images when it suits the image.

 

I'm often softening down my shots. I don't always want them to be razor sharp. I use different tools for different looks. I really hate when people complain about an image not being sharp. They are victims of marketing and forced response, not even looking and at and feeling the image.

 

I think the main issue to speak of is not that sharpness isn't right but because it's new it seems out of place.

 

If you really do want softness in B+W and Digital that use a softer or classic lens.

[lars_bergquist]

Here we go again: "Sharpness is the fetish of boring photographers."

 

But all right, let's try to agree on some definitions, so that we stop talking past each other. This is my modest proposal:

 

• Resolution: The ability to discriminate very smalll detail. A measurable quantity (in lp/mm).

 

• Contrast: The difference in illuminance/luminace levels. A measurable quantity (in lux, log density or whatever).

 

• Acutance: A.k.a. edge contrast of large and medium fine detail. Measurable in principle.

 

• Definition: A combined measure of resolution and contrast, as measured by MTF data.

 

• Sharpness: A subjective perception or impression of great distinctness in an image. Very personal and not measurable,

but there is an obvious correlation between this subjective sharpness and the (objective) acutance of edges with a spatial

frequency of 5—10 line pairs/millimeter.

 

At least, definitions are possible. This is after all a defrocked lexicographer speaking to you (descending from Mount Sinai

with various special effects in glorious Technicolor).

 

The old man from the Glorious Technicolor Age

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My comment last week in another thread applies to this discussion as well.

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

.

 

At least, definitions are possible. This is after all a defrocked lexicographer speaking to you (descending from Mount Sinai

with various special effects in glorious Technicolor).

 

The old man from the Glorious Technicolor Age

What!:eek: No Monochrom yet?

[lct]

Sharpness mania is not a new problem by far. We would not hear all those rants if sharper lenses were cheaper.

[lars_bergquist]

My comment last week in another thread applies to this discussion as well.

 

Jeff

 

And I agree wholeheartedly.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

[250swb]

 

I'm often softening down my shots. I don't always want them to be razor sharp. I use different tools for different looks. I really hate when people complain about an image not being sharp. They are victims of marketing and forced response, not even looking and at and feeling the image.

 

There are so many people who feel obliged to demonstrate how sharp their lens or camera is at every opportunity that I fear they are in the majority.

 

Look how many times on LUF we get the 'I need proof ' posts, somebody almost demanding direct comparison's between one lens and another so they can choose the sharpest to buy. When I started buying Leica lenses I did so with the general notion that they would be 'good enough'. And now we have sensor wars, no longer is an M9 'good enough', people say they need a higher resolution sensor, with higher ISO, presumably for some ground breaking project that will blow our socks off. I am damned sure some photographers don't understand why I add some grain or turn an M9 image into monochrome. Their impetus is to demonstrate the camera, my impetus is to demonstrate what I am thinking. Which for me makes the images released at the MM launch even more scary, not one photographer (it seems to me) who took the MM and said 'lets see how far I can take this in expressing myself' , all were universally bland, all universally towing the line. I think 'Henri' would be turning in his grave at the cheek of the pre-production nickname.

 

Steve

[bill]

... I am damned sure some photographers don't understand why I add some grain or turn an M9 image into monochrome. Their impetus is to demonstrate the camera, my impetus is to demonstrate what I am thinking. ...

 

Amen Brother.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[lars_bergquist]

What!:eek: No Monochrom yet?

 

Nope, and never.

 

Not because the camera is bad, or somehow immoral. It is just that even if an old man from the Kodachrome Age, living on his modest pension, could afford it, he would not want it. I spent a lot of time in various darkrooms; I learned to expose and develop film (and I also developed a few esoteric tricks), I learned to make exhibition size and exhibition quality black and white prints (developing some esoteric tricks on that side too). All that is behind me. Digital colour is what interests me now, not because it is easier than that ancient craft, but because it is more difficult.

 

As Christer Strömholm used to say: Vägra dö! (meaning Don't die!) He did, of course, but until then he lived a photographer's life. And I am going to learn new things as long as I'm conscious.

 

The old man from the Kodachrome Age

 

P.S. What I do think about 'sharpness' is here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/customer-forum/238647-what-do-you-think-price-new-21.html

[luigi bertolotti]

I join the opinion of many friends of mine here - sharpness is an overrated and often misdefined concept - but the OP question, specifically related to BW, maybe is worth some more considerations; if we accept that the sharpness, in its "correct" definition, is mostly related to edges'definition, I think that in BW it indeed deserves a special attention - and a specific value : I mean that, generally speaking (and sorry for generalization - all of us know that great pictures can be technically very rough), a classic and desirable feature of a FINE picture is the distinction of the SUBJECT from the "rest" of the image : be it achieved thanks to the bespoken "3D effect" of certain lenses, or thanks to a smart usage of separation of focus planes, it is clear that, anyway it has to do with the edges of our subject ; in a color image, is typical that color itself is an aid in this sense... you often have to deal with a subject whose "parts" are of different color from other components within the image... you enjoy one more factor to distinguish/isolate the edges of your subject; in BW of course isn't like this : in this sense, sharpness within the above definition can indeed represent a specific plus.

[Jeff S]

be it achieved thanks to the bespoken "3D effect" of certain lenses, or thanks to a smart usage of separation of focus planes, it is clear that, anyway it has to do with the edges of our subject ; in a color image, is typical that color itself is an aid in this sense...

 

You left out tonality...after all, they call it black and white for a reason...with all the shades of grey in between. Good light, too. Lots of ways to present a picture, and a subject.

 

Jeff

[SJP]

Lars,

 

This, from the other thread your refer to in post #33 here, should be framed or otherwise kept for posterity "the fact that many of my subjects are in the very bad habit of moving".

 

This is close to Boltzmann S=k.log(W)) on his gravestone. Not that I would advocate this mode of publication quite now. But I cannot give more praise than this.

 

The only problem is that your statement above will not fit on a gravestone, unless a somewhat small font is used. Darn, again a focussing problem:D

 

Anyway, I am honored to be part of this community.

 

(note, all of the above is not intended to be sarcastic as might be expected from me, not in this case).

 

Thanks

[jonoslack]

There will be those who, a couple of weeks ago, would not hear a word said against the Summilux who are now in the same sort of funk as a salad-dodger confronted by a choice between a bag of doughnuts and a newly arrived plate of eclairs; they cannot have them both but they MUST have the "best". The Summicron will be an irresistible draw for a while, then will be popping up with monotonous (no pun intended) regularity on the secondhand shelves because it "just isn't fast enough for me" (you heard it here first).

 

HI Bill

Interesting discussion . . . .

I'm in the exact position of your salad dodger (although I can usually dodge eclairs and doughnuts without problem). . . . . . and I still won't have a word said against the summilux.

 

But I had the misfortune to spend an hour with a new summicron, without any background knowledge - only with an assumption that it was a simple replacement for the existing summicron. So I was just playing with a new version of a lens which was theoretically inferior to my nice summilux. . . . . . It really got under my skin - but it wasn't anything to do with sharpness - it really does have something about it.

 

By which admission of lust, I'm only seeking to disconnect your post from the original thesis. I certainly feel that sharpness is something you apply in photoshop - and it has connections with accutance, but not much to do with resolution. Sharpening the files from the MM for instance is a recipe for catastrophe (anything but the smallest touch makes them look horrid).

 

Lars - thanks for the definitions.

If we're really talking about sharpness - then the answer to the OP is definitely NO.

If we're really talking about resolution - then surely Jaap has it - you can take it away, but you can't put it back - why wouldn't one want it?

 

As for the new summicron - don't knock it until you've tried it (and then wish that you hadn't !)

 

all the best

[digbyhp]

As Lars pointed out, sharpness is perceptual. That perception also depends on the enlargement factor and the viewing distance.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[NZDavid]

Back when Leica vied with Contax for supremacy in the rangefinder world, there was a debate whether Zeiss or Leitz lenses were sharper. The consensus seems to be that Leitz won out for resolution at the expense of slightly lower contrast. The 1950s rigid Summicron has extremely high resolution but less contrast than modern variants. According to some opinion, this lens is better suited to B+W. In my opinion, that's not always the case and the old Summicron is fine for color. There are also times when you don't want high contrast.

 

Recording and printing medium and techniques (film, sensor, paper, development, PP...), not just optics, make a huge difference. There are also what used to be called "high key" and "low key" images. I am not a big fan of high key, extremely high contrast B+W portraiture (examples in the latest LFI using the new MM), although these images are often held to be "gritty" and "realistic". I prefer slightly lower contrast portraits. They tend to be more sympathetic.

 

Grain is another debating point. Good or bad? I think there are even software programs where you can add grain to smooth digital images if you want to!

 

Of course a lot of this debate is all about personal taste!

 

On a slight tangent, I wonder if anybody recalls Agfa B+W slide film? I am curious how it would compare to images from the MM.

 

For landscapes, both B+W and color, yes, I believe the more resolution and razor sharp resolution the better!

[Paul Verrips]

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept (HCB).