Sharpness?

[Round Tuit]

I assume you're attempting to be provocative and controversial in your use of language.

It all depends on what you think photography is. Is it a technical exercise engaged in capturing realistic representations of a scene, or is it something that is about capturing a mood, an atmosphere, a tension - an expression/interpretation of what was happening at the time?

Once you answer that you can answer your first question.

Donald,
With the possible exception of photographs of specimens for scientific study, aren't most photographs an interpretation of a scene? The photographer chooses parameters (focal length, exposure, DOF, point of view, etc) to reflect his/her interpretation. I am relatively new to photography and I can see how dark or light or opened or cluttered etc would influence the mood of a photo but I can't think of any mood, atmosphere or tension that would be enhanced by purposefully creating an entirely out of focus photo.
André

[Round Tuit]

I think that what makes this image iconic in its own right is:
1. It was one of the few photos taken on the day that made it to press on the day.
2. This is a true combat shot, taken from the killing zone under fire (and Capa was noted for his determination to be close-in to the action with his photography)
3. It its way, intended or not (probably the latter), it's chaotic nature creates a sense of tension and disharmony that to me represents the stress and fog of combat.
4. If Capa's images had all been processed properly it may well have been that this image(and the other ones) would have turned out very differently, or been discarded because other, better shots were available.

I often wonder what became of that technician...

Trev,
These are all legitimate reasons to consider the photo iconic. The question that I am trying to answer is: Would it loose anything by being well focused? and if so what?

André

[Mike Buckley]

I can't think of any mood, atmosphere or tension that would be enhanced by purposefully creating an entirely out of focus photo.

That style of photography has been used since the 19th century and is still being used today. I understand that you may not think the result is an enhancement, which of course is your right. However, those who purposely make out of focus photos would surely disagree with you regardless of the method they use to make them.

EDIT: The one shown below is one of my favorites that I made by moving a wine glass while the shutter was open. I like it so much that I made a note card out of it.

[george013]

That style of photography has been used since the 19th century and is still being used today. I understand that you may not think the result is an enhancement, which of course is your right. However, those who purposely make out of focus photos would surely disagree with you regardless of the method they use to make them.

EDIT: The one shown below is one of my favorites that I made by moving a wine glass while the shutter was open. I like it so much that I made a note card out of it.

Good example. I like it too.

George

[Donald]

.... but I can't think of any mood, atmosphere or tension that would be enhanced by purposefully creating an entirely out of focus photo.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he deliberately shot it out of focus. But, another question is - Is it out of focus or is what we see, movement blur? I don't know what Capa's intention was when he captured the photograph. The question is:- Given that it is not sharp, is it still an iconic image or not? Is it a poor image because it is not sharp?

One of the three amphibious landings I made with the Marines in Vietnam was opposed and IT AIN'T FUN. We didn't receive anywhere nearly the amount of fire that the troops on Omaha Beach received but, it still got my attention...

Richard - Thank you for sharing your story of that part of your life.

[Round Tuit]

That style of photography has been used since the 19th century and is still being used today. I understand that you may not think the result is an enhancement, which of course is your right. However, those who purposely make out of focus photos would surely disagree with you regardless of the method they use to make them.

EDIT: The one shown below is one of my favorites that I made by moving a wine glass while the shutter was open. I like it so much that I made a note card out of it.

Mike,
Superb image to prove me wrong. I like it.
Thank you.

[Round Tuit]

... The question is:- Given that it is not sharp, is it still an iconic image or not?

I have no doubt that it is iconic.

Is it a poor image because it is not sharp?

I would say that it is poorer than if it were sharp but others might disagree with me on that score.
The question that I am grappling with is: What does the lack of sharpness contribute to this image if anything?

[Mike Buckley]

What does the lack of sharpness contribute to this image if anything.

The corollary to that is: If at least the primary subject was sharp, what would that characteristic contribute to the image if anything?

[Round Tuit]

The corollary to that is: If at least the primary subject was sharp, what would that characteristic contribute to the image if anything?

That question, I can answer clearly (pardon the pun) in my mind. In other words, I know what the lack of sharpness takes away from the image for me. I am trying to understand what positive contribution it make.

[Mike Buckley]

I know what the lack of sharpness takes away from the image for me. I am trying to understand what positive contribution it make.

I believe it's easy to overthink this stuff. It could be that the lack of sharpness doesn't contribute anything for you and never will. Not a thing wrong with that.

As for me, the lack of sharpness isn't important one way or another. If I had my way, the first thing to change would be the composition; it would be improved for me if there was some negative space between the subject and the bottom of the frame.

[rpcrowe]

We all know that, ideally, Capa would have used a DSLR that was weather sealed and had an equally weather sealed f/2.8 zoom lens with auto focus and image stabilization and of course burst mode and auto exposure bracketing. Shooting in auto ISO, the camera would have begun the day at a very high ISO and then, as the sun came out, lowered the ISO. A dual card slot would have been handy also!

We've come a long way since 1944 folks

[Manfred M]

We all know that, ideally, Capa would have used a DSLR that was weather sealed and had an equally weather sealed f/2.8 zoom lens with auto focus and image stabilization and of course burst mode and auto exposure bracketing. Shooting in auto ISO, the camera would have begun the day at a very high ISO and then, as the sun came out, lowered the ISO. A dual card slot would have been handy also!

We've come a long way since 1944 folks

Richard - I've moved your post. It showed up as a new post, but I suspect this is where it should have gone.

[Tronhard]

Capa was not only a documentary photographer, but a combat documentary photographer. As I understand it, the documentary photographer captures the image under what the conditions dictate - by which I mean location, composition, type of gear, and safety. Without doubt when the images that Capa took on D-Day he was in an extremely hazardous situation. He was stranded on a beach, partly submerged, using gear we would consider unsuitable for the situation and under fire. He was subjected to noise, the images he saw of young men being cut down en-masse and he could take a hit at any time. If the images that he took were, in their original condition, out of focus and blurry I can forgive him that. The fact that the processing was poorly handled and impacted the images is not helpful. BUT, and this is what is important in any such situation, THIS IS ALL WE HAVE of this event, in this place, at this time.

Omaha was the beach were things went least to plan of any of the allied landing sites. It features strongly in allied and in particular American views of the D-Day landings because of the challenges the forces faced when landing, and how they eventually overcame those. Of all the beach landings, it took the majority of casualties and loss of material. As such Capa's images have incredible historical value as a documentation of the event. There are many other beautifully focused images from other places and times on D-Day, but to me that does not diminish its value as an image. The alternative, if one was focus on sharpness, would have been to throw them all out and have nothing at all - and that would have done a great disservice to Capa for his bravery, and to those who landed with him and who suffered the confusions, casualties and stress of landing under fire.

For anyone under fire the key focus is on survival, for oneself and for one's comrades - to keep alive and get the job done. One of the things that the soldier has over Capa is that at least they could shoot back - it gives some sense of response, supports others and of course is necessary to achieve the objective. Capa had a camera, and that must have made him feel terribly vulnerable (as would medics for that matter), and he was not a soldier trained to deal with combat.

If his images are not necessarily pin sharp I can forgive him that, but as I have said, the imperfections of the image (be they rendered in the shot or the processing) actually inject an expression of some of the confusion and chaos that would have been inherent at the time.

[rpcrowe]

This BTW: is the anniversary of D-Day... June 6th...

[Tronhard]

SO true!

This BTW: is the anniversary of D-Day... June 6th...

[Manfred M]

I tend to go with Richard's comments that we are comparing images made 75 years ago with images that can be modern cameras. I would suggest that if we look at any technology that is that old and compare it with what modern equipment does we should be suitably impressed with the great strides that have occurred over the interim.

Great technology does absolutely nothing for two key aspects of photography:

(a) Good composition; and

(b) Being at the right place at the right time.

Both of these factors are very much what Robert Capa's imagery was about. Usually he got the technical aspects of the shot quite close as well. The retriculation that resulted from flawed processing is a film technique that was done on purpose in the wet darkroom; i.e. using heat to damage the film emulsion to get a "gritty" look. I have tried the process and it was rather hit and miss and one could just as easily ruin the roll of film as to get the hoped for effect.

When it comes to sharpness in an image, that is to some extent depends on what the photographer is trying to accomplish. Depth of field and motion blur are both well know techniques that are used in compositions to create specific photographic results. People have different views on the effectiveness of these techniques and often there is little margin for error when using them; the difference between a great image and one that does not work all that well.

Then there are pixel peepers who will look at images who are magnified at a level that are unrealistic. Frankly, I have little use for people that do this and extreme viewing is not particularly productive. There are "proper viewing distances" (usually between the diagonal of the image to about twice the diagonal of the image), so if the softness is not an issue at those distances, I feel that the photographer has created an acceptably sharp image.

[rpcrowe]

A bit more about Robert Capa and his D-Day film...

http://www.combatcamera.be/war-photo...n/robert-capa/

"His most famous work occurred on June 6, 1944 (D-Day) when he swam ashore with the second assault wave on Omaha Beach. He was armed with two Contax II cameras mounted with 50 mm lenses and several rolls of spare film. Capa took 106 pictures in the first couple of hours of the invasion. However, a staff member at Life in London made a mistake in the darkroom; he set the dryer too high and melted the emulsion in the negatives in three complete rolls and over half of a fourth roll. Only eleven frames in total were recovered. Capa never said a word to the London bureau chief about the loss of three and a half rolls of his D-Day landing film."

"Although a fifteen-year-old lab assistant named Dennis Banks was responsible for the accident, another account, now largely accepted as untrue but which gained widespread currency, blamed Larry Burrows, who worked in the lab not as a technician but as a “tea-boy”.Life magazine printed 10 of the frames in its June 19, 1944 issue with captions that described the footage as “slightly out of focus”, explaining that Capa’s hands were shaking in the excitement of the moment (something which he denied).Capa used this phrase as the title of his autobiographical account of the war, “Slightly Out of Focus”."

I know that Capa had two Contax cameras with him on D-Day and that at least one of the cameras was equipped with an f/2 lens.

I don't know what film he was shooting but, I strongly suspect that it was Kodak Double X which had a film speed of 100 and "could be pushed". But, using a 15-year old lab assistant for this important film, I doubt that they would have been "pushing the film"...

Lately we have had very overcast early mornings. Tomorrow, I am going to find out (roughly) what a film speed of 100 would give me exposure wise with an f/2 lens...

[george013]

One of or the first photo Capa made as a prof was from Trotsky.
https://iconicphotos.org/2009/07/22/...in-copenhagen/

Just wonderful to look back in history. Damages are not important.

George

[rpcrowe]

This morning at about 6:30 AM, it was quite foggy and dreary (we call this type of weather "June Gloom" here in Southern California). Anyway, I got an exposure of 1/60 second at f/2 using ISO 100. This was of my zeriscape yard with decomposed granite and plants (a lot like the sand of a landing beach).

If these conditions somewhat replicate the conditions on Omaha Beach, June 6th, 1944, Robert Capa certainly did not have a great amount of exposure leeway in shooting the landing.

I am old enough to have seriously shot with Contax cameras of the type Capa was used to cover the landing. If memory serves me, the focus capability of the Leica rangefinder was not all that great in relatively dim light. I liked focusing the Contax better than the equivalent Leicas but, it was still not up to the focusing capability of the later Leica M rangefinders or the Nikon S model cameras. IMO, the Nikon SP was the best rangefinder ever made.

Capa used Leica equipment to cover the Spanish Civil War, Contax cameras during World War Two and when he was killed during the first Indo China War, he was using a combination of a Contax and a Nikon S.

There were six versions of the original Contax-1 camera and there is no way to know which Capa was carrying.

It appears that both Capa's cameras were carrying 50mm lenses. I would expect that one was a backup, or perhaps one was used to shoot when the roll in the first camera was exhausted. He apparently was not using a pair of cameras to use two different focal length lenses. I have researched but could not find what kind of film he was using. His book about the Second World War is very light on the technical aspects of photography. The best that I could ascertain is that Kodax Double X emulsion was about the fastest available to photographers of the day. The speed of the film was 100 but, that included a one-stop insurance policy to make sure that a photographer would not under expose. Later that emulsion speed was changed to 200 by disregarding the extra stop. I don't even know the speed scale that Capa was using. Weston, G.E., and DIN were some of the scales used before the industry settled on ASA in 1954 and ISO twenty years later. The speed scales were slightly different. When using the original Weston reflective light meter, I had do do some math to convert the ASA to Weston film speed.

When the Nikon and Canon cameras came out, the Nikon S was designed along the lines of the Contax and the Canon rangefinder was designed along the line of the Leica. What killed Contax was that their factory was in the Russian controlled sector of Germany...

[Round Tuit]

This thread taught me a valuable lesson beside learning about Capa and the technology that he was using.
When Matt first asked his question, I was under the impression that he considered the fuzzyness of Capa's photo to be an asset or conversely that sharpness would have detracted from it. Matt has not come back to explain what he meant. Other members in the past have also left me with the feeling that they consider softness or other technical "flaws" as a mean to better express the emotions that they are capturing.
I see Capa's photo as a poor photo from a compositional and technical aspect. So far, no one has argued to the contrary; and that is reassuring to me. That does not make the image any less iconic for all the reasons that Trev eloquently pointed out. I have several photo albums filled with terrible photos that are all precious to me. They are precious because they are mementos of events or persons past; that, to my mind, does not make them good photos.
It now appears to me that my problem all along was one of "apples and oranges". I was looking narrowly at photos while the rest of the world was talking about images.