Do photos need to be sharp? + Future of Film Photography?

[MatthewOsbornePhotography]

Here model photography photo I took of model Emily in the spring using my Mamiya RZ67 pro ii and Kodak T-Max 400 film. I've pushed it in PP to give the high contrast look. When I first scanned the 6x7 medium format negative I was disappointed that the eyes were not sharp (in focus), but since then every time I saw the thumbnail on my HD it jumped out at me, probably as it is not the usual portrait shot.

I decided to post it to Flickr and I quite like the final result, even if it is a little quirky and probably a 'Marmite' shot (love it or hate it!)

Fashion Film Photography by MatthewOsbornePhotography_, on Flickr
Future of Film..? (for me)

I have just moved from my Nikon D800 to a Leica M9 (for my digital photography) and must say i'm blown away with the Leica experience. The Leica M9 Kodak CCD sensor renders photos more like film so it really threatens my future use of shooting film.

Here is an example of model photography with the Leica M9:

Leica Fashion Photography by MatthewOsbornePhotography_, on Flickr

See here for wordpress blog post examples of fashion / model photography using the Leica M9 -
Blog - Leica Model Photography - http://matthewosbornephotography.wordpress.com/2013/08/26/leica-m9-model-photography/

One thing the Leica M9 cannot do is provide such shallow depths of field (DOF) so I hope my medium format film cameras at least still have a future. I think the Contax 645, ARAX-CM (Kiev 8, Moskva-5 and Mamiya RZ still hopefully have their place. As for my Nikon FM and Voigtlander Bessa R3A rangefinder.. do they have a place..? well Kodak Portra film captures such nice skin tones for portraits, model photography and wedding photography, then maybe yes. The Nikon FM has the upper hand as I can use any of my Nikon mount lenses such as a Nikkor 200mm f2 that gives sharp shallow DOF images to almost match medium format film. The Bessa can use my Leica M mount glass but the result would not be hughly different from using the Leica M9 (i think) (IMO).. not yet done a side by side comparison.. yet..

You can see more Mamiya RZ67 film photography model / fashion photos on my blog here if interested (including photos of the same model, Nella, as shown in Leica blog link for a direct comparison - Blog: http://matthewosbornephotography.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/fashion-on-film-mamiya-rz67

Conclusion.. I don't think DSLRs can threaten film photography (or those that like the film look) but Leica.. it definitely make you stop and think!

IMHO only!

http://www.matthewosbornephotography.co.uk/Film-Photography.html

[cooltouch]

Honestly, for most people, the Leica M9 is not competition with their current gear. I personally know of nobody who is willing to spend over $7,000 on a camera. I never will, unless I should hit the lottery, and even then I'd think about it.

Film quality continues to improve. See the recent thread here on the ADOX emulsion that will resolve 800 lines per mm. That's way beyond the resolution capabilities of most sensors -- and most lenses, far as that goes.

http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films/ADOX_CMS_Films.html

No, I think the limiting factor, as sensor and film makers continue to push the envelope is the lens. Most lenses are incapable of rendering everything that high-megapixel count sensors and high resolution films are capable of seeing. Zeiss has some lenses that they claim will resolve 400lpmm, and in fact from what I've read, they used the ADox film to prove it. But other than Zeiss, I know of no other lens maker who is attempting to build ultra-sharp lenses. But trust me, that's where the focus will be centered in the coming months and years.

BTW, nice photos!

[MatthewOsbornePhotography]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the message.. I was not aware of this.. very interesting It's great to hear films are still being developed and not just production winding down. I must get some!

I have a Zeiss Planar 80mm f2 T on my Contax 645 and that is very very sharp. I also have an old Rollei (Zeiss) 50mm f1.8 which gives sharp photos and I recently bought a Zeiss ZM T 50mm f2 for the Leica. Again sharp with great micro contrast.

I do love film so that is music to my ears. I'll get researching!

As for Leica.. it's not as expensive as most people think. My used Leica M9 body was only just more than my Nikon D800 when they were released. Lenses are expensive I know but the offerings from Zeiss and Voigtlander give fantastic results. I'm happy with third party lenses for now. I drive a small car, rarely drink, don't smoke and spend wisely on non-camera expenses so cameras are my little treat plus I get paid for photography so that helps fund my obsession!

[luisalegria]

I would be falling over myself in pride if I were ever to manage something like your first shot !
It is indeed a very striking picture, and in photography thats the first and usually the most important objective.
Grab those eyeballs.

Your standards are almost absurdly high though, so take my opinion for what its worth.

As for film vs digital resolution, I guess it depends on what the resolution requirements are for the final use of the product.
Do your customers need such blowup potential ?

[cooltouch]

[MatthewOsbornePhotography]

Michael, in my opinion you are overlooking the main reason cameras now offer higher number of MP.. it's not because consumers buying tiny 18MP P&S cameras want to blow up their images to poster size.. there is a very high chance that 95% of non-pro/semi pro photographers buying high MP digital cameras do not print larger that 7x5 (if print at all). In this day most people just upload their holiday photos to social media sites rather than print. Those photographers offering work to clients such as wedding photographers / model photographers then yes maybe. I think the main reason is it sounds inviting to the market so is an excuse to upgrade their camera.

Other reasons for higher MP count or pixel density is it gives the ability to crop a photo and still be able to print to a poster size. My Nikon D800 is 36MP so I can crop to 1/3 of original size and have same resolution as my 12MP D700. As the pixels in the photos appear smaller it also lets you sharpen images far more without grain or noise.

Crop example from when I first got the Nikon D800

D800 cropping power! by MatthewOsbornePhotography_, on Flickr

As for the new ADOX film.. then yes this is designed for professionals looking for the highest quality images. By that I mean sharp as well and can be enlarged. Film is not a cheap way to photograph in the digital era so i think those that buy film with high pixel density are looking for perfection rather than just caught up in the marketing hype associated with high MP digital cameras.

Just MO, and from owning 2 similar cameras, 1 with 3x more MP

[Nesster]

Do photographs need to be sharp, and then the discussion is about theoretical 350dpi prints? Which is it? Do we live by sharpness over everything else, and not just sharpness, but conventional (herd) ideas of sharpness, i.e. the eyes must be in the sharpest of focus.

Clearly, there's a commercial arena where that sharpness is enforced. But really, thinking of the best/most famous photographs of the past century, how many of them are truly sharp in the modern sense?

[Excalibur]

***Do photographs need to be sharp***

No! As my wife (my personal model) complained when using my RB67 as it was showing that she was a bit older than when she was 20, so I fitted a diffuser in front of the lens.

[cooltouch]

Matt, I agree with you regarding the ability to crop with high-mp cameras. In fact, I pointed out that advantage here in a recent thread. Another reason for wanting a camera with a high mp sensor is so it can be used to duplicate slides with a slide duplicator outfit. A sensor of about 24 mp renders the same image recording capabilities as one of the high-end Nikon slide/negative scanners, i.e. 4000 ppi. I dupe slides with my 10.1mp EOS, and they are sharper than I get with my Epson 4990, which is no slouch of a scanner. But 10.1mp doesn't have enough resolving power to resolve the grain on a fine-grained slide or negative (it's "only" about 2800 ppi), so I need more. At least 24mp.

But I dunno if I agree that the main thing driving the consumer market to buy higher mp cameras is an excuse to upgrade. I know if I were selling these cameras, I would point out the ability to make sharp enlargements as well as being able to crop. I can recall a couple of years ago, I was checking out the cameras at a big box store, and there was a couple standing next to me -- and one of them wondered out loud what the advantage to having a higher mp count would be. I answered their question, pointing out the obvious -- larger enlargements, but also the ability to crop -- which hadn't occurred to them. And I honestly think that most people looking to buy P&S cameras aren't thinking about cropping. But I think it's a bit more than it just being an excuse, especially if this is gonna be a first camera for somebody. And hey, let's face it -- these days, the camera has to have enough appeal for somebody to want to buy one as opposed to just using their phone. Another reason for wanting a camera with a higher mp count.

Jussi, as long as I can remember, 350 dpi has been the accepted standard for photo print sharpness. 300 dpi is acceptable, but anything lower than that isn't. There is a direct correlation between image resolution and the quality of an enlargement made from it. Good point about the sharpness of famous photographs. Many are critically sharp though (think Ansel Adams), while others aren't (think Robert Capa's famous D-Day photos). It depends on the importance of the moment, I suppose.

Exc, I know the feeling. Years ago, I took a series of images of my mother and father. She was about sixty then and he was in his 70s. The cameras I was using was a pair of Rolleiflexes with 2.8 lenses. I had probably stopped them down to f/8 or so. When I got the prints back from the developer I noticed that every single wrinkle and line was evident -- and so did my parents. They were not very enthused. I should have used a soft filter, but it just didn't occur to me, not being a pro portrait photographer and all.

[Excalibur]

Now, for say a woman of 35 when crow's feet are appearing around the eyes and lines around the mouth..you can use the smudge in PS.....but now my wife is in her 70's she will not have a close up (head a shoulders) photo taken of her by me. h'mm but her passport photo looks OK, maybe she remembers what a RB 67 can do

[Orio]

Sharpness is a tool, just like a hammer.
You can use it to sculpt the David, or to destroy it.

[cooltouch]

Good point, Orio. Just because you have it, doesn't mean you have to use it.

[MatthewOsbornePhotography]

[rbelyell]

[RSalles]

It's a good question. Do I discard my J-9 just because it's not that sharp like my Summicron 2/50?
Or discard my CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135 because the bokeh is not that crazy like Helios 40-2?
Each tool for each work. We doesn't use a hammer to screw neither a scissors to do a soldering job, or do it?


Renato

[Orio]

[rbelyell]

i mostly agree with this point, but i think it only deals with part of the story: with photography as an 'art' or as some form capable of being broken down to 'good' or 'not good' from a set of commonly agreed to precepts. the first problem i see here is that not everyone agrees to all those precepts. well, be that as it may, and chalk it up to the 'subjectivity of art'.

but the second issue is maybe more important, in that i think many, and i include myself here, might find joy in an 'objectively' boring or even 'poor' photo that we took because the photo shows off some technical brilliance of the equipment (camera plus lens) that we used. i just spent a weekend with relatives and took a whole bunch of meaningless, mundane, rather boring photos. but my heart was pumping and my lips constantly smiling because of the sharpness, clarity and color i was getting in every photo from my gxr plus nikkor 35/2.5. technically: garbage; personally satisying: beyond words.
tony

[RSalles]

One more thing: very specialized or "state of the art" equipment make possible photos which would not be possible otherwise - may I say iPhone?
There are millions of photos around that would be impossible to achieve with a point & shoot. Take NatGeo as example. But I agree, a boring image can appear crisp and remains boring, and it's "crispiness" makes it more boring indeed,





Renato

[iangreenhalgh1]

[RSalles]

Ian,

It does not exist, because the human being can only be obsessed by one think at time, or it will not be obsession at all.

This conversation about gear as a secondary element in good photograph sounds like what good photographers always insist with us: results more than tools. Results are the target. The tools are a medium to achieve the target.

Our society are in transformation, every day, state of the art technologies are here to stay, or to be replaced in a short time with newer and better.
Everybody is free to lay the hands over it, or choose another way to achieve results. Good equipment and sharp images doesn't makes an image worst "per se", or better "per se". The way it's used and the results, it's what really does matter.

I 'm some sort of suspect to write this because I can arrive to really good results with what's known by "newbie", or amateur camera+lens. The reason is that I made a course of 30 years in film technologies before my hands touched the first time a digital camera. I knew composition rules, and when is good to bypass it, lightning, DOF, exposure etc, decades before the digital arena was open. But this is another story, and question was - sharp or not sharp...

Cheers,

Renato


Renato

[rbelyell]

like virtually everything else in life, there arent simply 'two kinds of shooters', or one set of criteria upon which to 'define photography' or to judge art. it is small minds that need to fit every aspect of a wide, diverse and brilliant life into dark little labeled boxes. one can easily appreciate both the aesthetics of fine photography (and derive pleasure from accomplishing that as a goal) and equally find pleasure in the beauty of technology for its own sake (and derive pleasure from utilizing that technology to achieve the peak of that technology). little minds will remain little and operate in an ever narrowing world of their own personal definition. me, i am happy to enjoy art and technology, both for what they are in and of themselves and for what they can achieve together.

[Orio]

There's nothing wrong in enjoying the inherent beauty of a technological object.
We all do that I think, maybe in different degrees but it's a common feeling here
We admire the beauty of the craftsmanship. Because, there is human spirit behind the creation of a Contax II,
just as well as there is behind a masterpiece by Michelangelo. It's only different ways of expression.

How to describe what I feel when I hold my Contax II? Don't know, but it feels good to the soul.
It also feels good to the soul when I look at a beautiful painting, or a nice human being.

As long as we are inspired by beauty in the world, does not really matter where or by what.

The problems start when we have to deal with ugliness: wars, death, hunger, empty pockets, cold in the winter, loneliness, illness.
Beauty is never a problem, it is always welcome, wherever it comes from.

[iangreenhalgh1]

[calvin83]

Sharpness is the least concern for me as I do not need to print them to large size. I think most lens is sufficient sharp for most amateurs like me who do not need a large print.

Better tools enable you have more flexibility while limited tool can give you more space to think...

[cooltouch]

I get a significant amount of satisfaction from achieving technical excellence in my photography. But the photograph has to make a statement of some sort, or else it's about as meaningful as a phone book page: all the text is clearly typed, but so what? So for me, both art and good technique must come together for me to consider any of my photos worthy of public dissemination. But I also feel that my photography can always be improved. So things end up being relative.