Do you agree?
>>4391351No. Because its an objective answer to a subjective question.
>>4391351Yes>>4391354Wrong
1. He was joking when he said it. His hands were shaking.2. By "bourgeois" he meant it wasn't necessary because it made images sterile anyway. It took the artistry out of the final image. He also meant it was a luxury that he didn't have, and that only rich kids with new toys worried about. But sharpness depends on what you're trying to communicate - it can be a crucial aspect of an images perception.
>>4391351No one who says bourgeosie is right
>>4391351marxism is inherently subversive and leads to social decayignoring him is how we got cheap soft lenses, because the development of very sharp lenses resulted in that old tech being cheap
Only for film
>>4391351Nah
>>4391407Sharpness is generally superior. Very, very few things benefit from anything less. Most people do not have the wits or skill to omit it. Those that do would do better to abandon film era get it right in cameraism and omit it in photoshop, rather than relying on photography funkos for every adjustment that’s too complex for the darkroom or just doesn’t work that well if you're shooting jpeg like its 2006 and only porsche drivers own carss bigger than 1gb and computers that can process and store a significant amount of raws. Basically every major photographic production you have seen was shot on insanely sharp lenses and all the gentle character was added in post. You never noticed, and probably thought they were actually shooting on rehoused leica rangefinder lenses. The only thing individual lenses matter for anymore is sharpness and bokeh.
People that call others bourgouis are the burgoisest cunts ever themselves
>>4391351Maybe on his time but taking sharp photos is not a luxury for well off middle class any more. So no.
>>4392819It wasn’t a luxury thenHe just didnt know how to use a camera
There may be some truth to this. The ability to render images of a subject in a fidelity even greater than the human eye comes with a form of power over the subject. It exposes and reveals. Every freckle, every blemish, every pore. Sharper images allow us to grasp and hold, possess. Softer images are more smoke like in their rendition. The image is not as revealed and therefore more subtle, mysterious, poetic. I would say the difference between between sharp and softer renditions is like the difference between porn and erotica. The latter is more cerebral, less hard edged and literally defined, and therefor more elusive. The power relationships between subject and sharp or softer renderings is there I reckon.. Why do you think a lot of women's erotic is soft lenses and focus? Less about that controlling power and possessing, classic bourgeois traits. And as far as contemporary photography's obsession with sharpness, it is manly driven by shitty YouTube reviewers. These fuckers who could not take a fuckin photo to save themselves base their reviews on the only things they can, which is shit like sharpness and color charts. Not look how great the images I get out of this lens but muh sharpness, muh color and that drives the market and in turn production, comrade.
>>4392998Youtube reviewer= shitty anime figure with even shittier lighting
>>4392998This post is proof that all liberals share the same schizophrenia as ashkenazim>take a photo that isnt blurry>dissis yt mail power
>>4392998its because photography isnt necessarily art and people dont want every photo to be shitty 80s boudoir or bresson wankeven most artists dont, because artists are rarely photographers, and those few that are have moved on to adding character in post or with flavor filters in front of flawless arri master primes
>>4393018(Because handing all the character decisions to a lens maker, who is not an artist himself, but an industrial mook working with math, is NOT conducive to creative work, just funko pop collecting ala leica people. Nothing else like it exists in high art. Only in folk art - the electric guitar market is all about canned tones and mythical BS that makes microcontrast look like NASA discovered it)
>>4391351Yes, but it doesn't matter.You are bound to find shitmongers and gear worship in every art form, it is inescapable. Shills keep bringing objectivity into the subjective, the endless comparisons on edge sharpness, the shape of bokeh balls or the presence of LOCA implies that optically perfectly rendered images are better images. The other end of the spectrum is shrouded in mysticism. The case of the klon centaur collecting boomer with their unlistenable pearl jam cover band is well documented already. The modern leica cult needs no introduction either. Gear does matter, and some inspiration undoubtedly stems from the tools we use, but not to the extent it is amplified on these fringes. You can't deny the incredible level of detail that a modern digital medium format sensor can capture. You also can't deny that only a select few can ever afford to dabble in it. And yet, my favourite image these past months was taken on a shitty focus free point and shoot on expired kodak vr200.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelX-T30Focal Length (35mm Equiv)135 mmImage-Specific Properties:Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating2500Lens Aperturef/1.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length90.00 mmWhite BalanceManualSharpnessNormal
>>4393038>good point, trash imagethe state of this board
>>4393038photography is not an art formbut it can document one
A sharp image without weird color outlines and shit is better for most photography. Because most photography is not making any effort to be impressionist. People say a lens without flaws is better because it is better for 100% of nonart photography AND most art photography, especially considering that you dont need to buy additional lens units to add aberrations, but it’s impossible to take them away. Try shooting through window glass and hairspray. A sony GM is popular because with some effort and screw on filters it can cover every style. You’ve ignored all these tricks for some reason. Maybe because they arent the real way to do it and buying a whole new lens is what youtube told you to do. Did you know you can steamroll most character lenses by taking an out of focus image after the in focus one and combining them? And experiment with different brightness and wb and shit when you do or only apply the effect partially? No probably not. The distinction that needs to be made is whether using some piece of equipment in itself makes it more art or less art. The only correct answer is neither. Slapping a shit lens in front of a shit pic doesn’t transform it into art either, but have fun telling that to fujifaggots and leica snobs as they shovel thousands into the gaping maw of a corporation spouting words like magic, microcontrast, and artistic rendering and telling people that they are real artists with soul because their camera looks old. It really is like the electric guitar market, specifically the ones called blues lawyers. The other end described above isn’t, that’s more like painting. One simple tool capable of incredible detail is also capable of splatter, but some people just don’t think outside the box and actually nail themselves in it.
>>4391351good sharpness adds to the experience of a photo, but a photo is more than sharpnessi can pixel peep high res scans of the mona lisa, but that's a worse experience of the "art" for most than seeing it in person from meters awaymost people let the obsession over sharpness become a priority over other things that matter more (lighting, composition, editing, etc)
>>4393081Good sharpness is more accessible today than ever before. It’s the default. Everyone has 24-48mp and a sharp lens. The wankers are now paying voigtlander $1000 to blur their images for them and overpaying for 8mp cameras from 2008 in an attempt to buy their way into art.
>>4391351>communists telling people that its ok to be poorcompromised from birth!
