How sharp is too sharp?

[Kustomkarma]

Well...I've been shooting as often as possible since the middle of this year as I try to hone my digital photography camera and lighting skills. Throughout this process I have become increasingly aware of the fact that the images produced by digital cameras are generally sharp - very sharp. If I zoom in on my photos I can see every little hair and pore on my models. While I don't generally shoot really close up, this overall sharpness is evident in most of my photos - which isn't necessarily bad, but it got me thinking about how pinup used to be shot on film and oftentimes the images were not razor sharp. Reality has an atmosphere to it (cloudy, hazy, dark, etc.) When you're talking to someone or watching a sunset it's not razor sharp. I noticed that a lot of publications favor this super sharp style - which again isn't a bad thing - I'm just saying that like the grain 400 B&W film produces and a little lens flare never hurt either.

 

So what do you guys and gals prefer when you shoot - super sharp, soft, somewhere in between? What lenses and focal lengths do you like to use? Ambient or controlled light? 

[ReverieRevel]

I like to shoot sharp, because I can always soften it up in image processing. ... but some of my images come out soft anyway, especially when using a new lens or trying out the extremes of aperture. 

Whether it's studio or outdoor, I really like soft ambient style lighting. I guess if I was going to shoot angsty and go for a more moody look, controlled and more focused lighting. 

For the images that document historical clothing and for product/eBay use, I want good lighting and super crisp images of the clothing.

So it just depends... but I'd rather start with a super sharp image and edit it later. 

[matt granger]

i feel that the super sharp look is just a trend, not a terrible one, but at the least a trend.  photogs like gary land, who is a commercial photog dubbed the saying "hyper-realism" it's kitch, but i'm not personally crazy about it.  i like a good sharp image and i also realize that life isn't always sharp.  with that said, i don't always want to shoot everything like i would see it in life.  photography is about experimenting and seeing what happens in the process.  i tend to drop my in camera sharpening all the way down to 0 and doing all the sharpening in photoshop during post.  i am however a huge fan of the 400 tmax b&w film and also tri-x.

[Kotog]

I often find its harder to get the super tack sharp shots than it is the slightly less so ones. So in general I preffer pretty sharp. Besides like it was said earlier you can always desharpen a bit... but if the detail isn't there in the first place....

 

Favorite lens for ultra sharp - canon 70-200 II 2.8

[PixelPurfect]

Be careful that you don't confuse sharpness and clarity. Digital sensors can struggle with both, especially "C" size sensors.  Clarity can be thought of as local contrast and sharpness can be thought of as well defined edges and halos.

 

The image mood would determine the esoteric choices for me.  I agree with Kotog, better to capture the detail, then dumb it down.  :o)

[G&D Studios]

When shooting pin up style images I go sharp, but NOT HDR.  When tending towards boudoir, I go with softer lighting and open the aperature up for a softer feel.  I shoot with Canon L glass so I have a broad range.

[Kustomkarma]

Thanks for all the great responses -as usual! The thing (other than just general curiosity) that inspired me to ask was that I just picked up a Tokina lens that is good at rendering details, but isn't razor sharp like my other lenses. I opened the aperture up all the way and shot in ambient morning light with a little bit of fill flash and ended up with images that took me right back to the 70's. It reminded me how much I like that softer almost grainy look that film has - I'm also a big Technicolor fan, so it was definitely a flashback. I think I may have found my ideal pinup lens. Keep the replies coming as it's really interesting to see what everyone prefers.

[photoassassin{★}]

Any digital image requires at least a little bit of sharpening due to the coating on the sensor. I stress "little bit" to my students as "if you can tell you've sharpened it, you've done too much"

 

I love the film look and think that most digital imaging has made people obsessive compulsive about sharpness and "clean" photos. Photoshop is there to do the dodge and burn of the days past, but has come to a point where the photo is now basically a start for a digital painting.

 

In essence, I think it matters what you're doing with the final image. Organic (visible grain) images IMO give a photo a more personal feel than overly clean, sharp images which lend themselves more to high fashion than pinup.

[J.AndrewsPhotography]

It all depends on what your shooting and what theme you are going for. =)

Pictorialism was where photography originated and some still love that dreamy, painterly effect with soft focus.

I'm a Canon gal, and I like using a 28-105mm lens for portraiture photography for that sharp/crisp detail. With low apertures settings, great for skin tones when used with good lighting at fast shutter speeds. You can always soften skin in photoshop without losing detail in everything else. For myself, I like a sharp as a tack focus point with selective focus to make the subject pop. Sometimes, when everything is too sharp and in focus, you don't know what the subject or focus is. 

[Kustomkarma]

Thanks for the response! I'm leaning towards soft focus here lately.