Discussion and application of this
term is directly related to photography and film, or media that rely on
the lens. In a certain sense, we could push to include any three-dimensional
medium viewed by the human eye, since it is a system of the same kind.
However, our focusing happens unconsciously, so we are not so likely to
perceive the unsharpness (this one not being so great anyhow, our eye's
focal length being some 21 mm, with the widest opening of approximately
f4). So, even though the idea of sharp and unsharp could be known to us
from behavior of our own eye, it is still most commonly connected to the
"camera media". As a consequence of this perceptual experience, we could
find the analogous phenomena in other mediums, like use of texture in painting
to make what is represented more or less present. The following
description of stages of (un)sharpness does not base itself on any
absolute measurement (which can be determined by the technical resolution
standard of a particular technique). We will (as we commonly do) focus
on the impression of sharpness, which then practically of course
corresponds with the standards of the individual media (circle of confusion
and depth of field in photography and film).
So, at the very beginning one thing has to be clearly summed up: there
is no division between "sharp" and "unsharp" within an image. There is
only a degree of sharpness for every object. Therefore, isolating
some particular degrees of sharpness may be an arbitrary act, but still,
we manage to differentiate six characteristic stages. Between each of those
there are still subtler shades of difference to be found (an educated eye
of a photographer or a cinematographer will most likely have those stored
in its memory), so all this just confirms how influential, in this respect,
is the choice of lens and the aperture. Here we go...
TOO SHARP we will call the sharpness that exceeds our expectations
and standards - perhaps set up by the viewing so far. This is the "painfully
sharp", or "trip sharp" - an almost irritable surprising intensity
of sensory perception likened to the effect of some stimulative drugs.
Something is not real here, it is un- or sur- real, so it is not reality
that we experience, but rather something penetrant and omnipotent, as some
unstoppable radiation.
SHARP is the upper boundary of our sharpness standard. It exemplifies
all that sharpness means: something real, concrete, material, available
to our touch - present here and now. Obviously, this is more real than
"too sharp".
BARELY OUT OF FOCUS is something we can still claim to be sharp, even
though a more meticulous inspection will confirm it to be slightly "swimming"
in there. This adds a touch of non material to the ground level - or maybe
lifts up that material to a bit more abstract realm by removing some of
the texture. So, what still is here is the descriptive ability,
with some attributes of slight immateriality.
MODERATELY OUT OF FOCUS is the first impression that crosses that disputed
crude sharp/unsharp division. This is therefore perceived as unsharpness,
even though still with all the shape of the subject represented - it is
just devoid of its material attributes such as texture and finer details.
Remaining shape starts suggesting that this thing is now not material,
but rather an idea of itself, an essence of it.
OUT OF FOCUS is that abundantly documented impression within which
wide mainstream we should be able to differentiate and judge most of those
"in between shades" - depending on the practical situation involved. Being
the representative of unsharp, it suggests the untouchable, diffused, immaterial,
abstract and an idea.
COMPLETELY OUT OF FOCUS is that last frontier before the total blur
- which isn't on this scale just because for an impression of unsharp,
we do have to have some imaginary "sharp" that was undone - which something
extremely blurred into a uniform surface would not have. Since even the
shape of the presented is being lost here, what we get out is more of an
essence of the unsharpness itself, than the subject.
It is hard to build the image entirely out of the unsharp matter, because
such an action immediately shifts the sharpness standard, bringing us back
to the start. Therefore, an image is most often composed in combination
of different degrees of sharpness. This brings us to an overall conclusion
(step back a bit to see the whole thing): sharpness is the qualitative separation
agent in the image surface, molding the most direct tissue from which
something is made. Using that principle, it can be a refined introduction
of third dimension - even before it brings us to perceptual analogy
of focus in space, and organizes that space accordingly - which means an
idea of third dimension without the realistic spatial concept. This is
possible because sharpness essentially does not depend on the concrete,
so it doesn't eliminate higher abstraction levels.
Habitually, we are used to seeing very far things out of focus; then
all of those within the "perception range" sharp and real, and finally
very close things, foreground, out of focus again. The last two distance
groups also have an uncanny connection with the ideas of right and left:
it is interesting to apply those to our scale of sharpness as well. As
far as foreground goes, its intimate framing of the image feels like a
part of us, essentially "left" (foreground, in its true intimate function,
can more often be found on the frame left...), while the major action part
is most commonly expected to be on the real, earthly distance, "within
the reach of the right hand".
Declinations from the common sharpness distribution are meaningful -
almost related to the psychological anomalies. The sharp background with
all the closer objects blurry makes those subconscious to a degree, hidden
by a veil, while the eye wanders detached into the distance. Opposite case
of only the foreground being sharp even more intently manipulates the focus:
our little piece of sharp matter is completely isolated from the environment,
self-centered, and it is so close to us (and not only in space), that it
is hard not to empathize.
The term of shallow and deep focus concerns exactly the
range of the sharpness scale: shallow focus encompasses a wider range and
doing so amplifies all the effects of sharp and unsharp, while deep focus
narrows that scale towards the top, so everything has the attributes of
sharp, and any separation or isolation (if at all needed) is left to other
resources. Finally, it is obvious that the sharp part of the image is traditionally
valued as the center of attention. Most of our examples fit this model,
which still doesn't mean it should have such an exclusive position. Just
by recognizing the qualities of each particular level of sharpness, it
must become natural to understand each as a valid specific way of presentation.
From this, it is easy to accept the attention center detached from The
Sharpest within image. Those sharper elements in such case (still) serve
other functions: they set the sharpness standard by which it becomes apparent
how
much is something out of focus. Just the same, they can simply be something
that is, although marginal, best represented sharper than the main subject. |