Chuck Jones
Subscriber Member
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Maybe he meant slightly different? I have many photos, that are not in focus, and are great, I like their climate a lot. These are rather situations, when nothing is sharp, we see only contour of people, someting like this.Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. - Henri Cartier-Bresson
I'm curious of the context around this quote. Was he targeting "film peepers" of his day? After recently visiting the Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the SF MOMA, I don't remember a lot of OOF shots, but then again, he was shooting film.Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. - Henri Cartier-Bresson
Don't know whether this is true or not, but it's a starting point:I'm curious of the context around this quote. Was he targeting "film peepers" of his day? After recently visiting the Cartier-Bresson exhibit at the SF MOMA, I don't remember a lot of OOF shots, but then again, he was shooting film.
http://vizualpoetry.com/Henri-Cartier-Bresson-quotes.html
I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects.
-Henri Cartier-Bresson, on technique.
"American Photo", September/October 1997, page: 76
IMO, most of the people chasing autofocus accuracy with those laughable toys are as misguided as the HCB comment I just posted suggests.Not to muddy the waters, but I could use some clarification on the business of depth of field with regards to the long-standing notion that it extends 1/3 in front of the focal point and 2/3 beyond it. I recently read an explanation on the site that sells those fancy focus checking devices and the guy who sells them claims that the 1/3-2/3 thing is a myth. That in fact, depth of field is actually spread almost equally before and behind the focal point.
I have always operated on the assumption that the 1/3-2/3 rule was true. Is it fact or myth?
The laws of optics and the mathematics of depth of field makes this notion impossible. I invite you to review the DoF equations posted on the DOFMaster site:Just go and shoot eg. this:
http://www.whibalhost.com/lensalign/
of course you can build quickly something similar by yourself using ruler.
And you will know the answer. Personally I found some lenses that follow 1/3 - 2/3, some that are closer to 50 - 50.
But for sure it is myth that ALL have the same split.
Terry - us simple folks use practice - knowing (in principle) how to get it in focus is very interesting, but it's not nearly as useful as knowing (in practice) how to get it in focus .. . . . . . . . and in my very humble opinion practice is where it's at.So, for us simple folk, what you're saying is that the notion of 1/3 in front and 2/3 in back is NOT a myth and that when shooting, it's a safe "rule of thumb" with which to work. True?
I did, I open:makes this notion impossible. I invite you to review the DoF
No, what you're seeing is the fact that at short focus distances, the curves are closer to 50-50. That's because the near and far 'acceptable focus' limits are not defined as a linear progression, they're a geometric progression. The same characteristic will be true of ALL lenses as you walk the DoF curves for near and far from close distance to far distance settings.I did, I open:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
I select M9, 35mm at f/1.4, distance 70 cm. And see split: 49% - 51%.
I change distance to 600 cm and receive 40% - 60%.
Is this wrong?
Yes, for normal subject distances.So, for us simple folk, what you're saying is that the notion of 1/3 in front and 2/3 in back is NOT a myth and that when shooting, it's a safe "rule of thumb" with which to work. True?