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.

sharpness

Almost the whole surface of this image lands somewhere around the degree of "out of focus" - wanting to loose itself from the texture, material and exact qualities, while still keeping the directions and ideas of the presented. A tiny branch on top sets the sharpness standard, and also lifts the whole construct to a keen dignity which in it couldn't have been found.



 


In this case, we identify with the closer sharp object, which is so isolated, not even the sharpness can give it a concrete presence. This distribution of focus often alludes to the isolation from the environment - reduced to a bunch of "blurry ideas". If our foreground would point downwards (lets flip the image for a moment), the schizophrenic would be even more intense.