[Leica] Re: SHARPNESS cont.

[Paul Schiemer <pschiemer@aol.com>]

Thanks for the input, all comments well taken.

I wasn't proposing purely technical exchanges, but a formula for
expressing 'sharpness' beyond mere expletives, ooops, I mean
adjectives.  While it does boil down to line pairs and lines per
millimeter, it could be a useful reference.
Nor did I propose stopping subjective assessments.  They are important
as well.

I do shoot more than line charts (really I do), but I've had the habit
of shooting a roll of them when first getting a lens to determine
optimum aperture- a VERY important aspect of any lens (IMO).
It's a relatively simple thing to accomplish, and remains in my contact
book as a reference.  Quite useful.

Old underwear or not, good photography starts at the front element.  You
must be in the right place, at the right time, and have a handle on what
you're doing -of course- but, as y'all said, it doesn't have to be
'sharp' to be good.
[I know a guy who smears Vaseline on his $1,500.00 lens for portraits!]

I was suggesting we establish a reference point.  It could reduce
confusion (as example; more than one comment where 'contrast' was
something other than part of the 'sharpness' quotient.)
[Quoting here from a document I have;  "General contrast rendering is a
component of lens quality.  This determines the brilliance of the
picture as a whole, and, in color photography, color saturation and
color differentiation.  Contrast rendering is also responsible for the
sharpness of the entire picture."]

Modern lenses have nearly nullified aberrations as suffered by our
predecessors.  Developments (no pun) at the molecular level in film
emulsions would have stupefied the guys who painted it on glass plates,
not so long ago.  We have a great advantage with all this technology,
and manufacturers are now capable of producing repetitive results (but
miss the mark sometimes.)
With a formula or rating system it would be easy to draw a line in the
sand (again, no pun).

Just because Mr. Welch 'likes' the 19mm Elmarit is not endorsement
enough, in and of itself, for me to go out and buy one.  It may, in
effect, pique my interest, but won't make ME like it.
If he couples his comments with factoids like 'to use this lens you must
stand perpendicular to the film plane, lest you get your shoulders in
every frame', or 'not recommended for aquarium shots, antagonizes the
fish.' Those things help present a clearer picture, to me.

Anyway, 'tack sharp' ain't in my dictionary.  What I get is this:
tack (tak) noun. 1.A short, light nail with a sharp point and a flat
head -&- sharp (shärp) adjective: sharper, sharpest.2.a.Having clear
form and detail: a sharp photographic image.
Nobody, as of yet, has defined this nebulous ‘tack sharp’ thingie. 
Judging by the responses it isn’t that important anyway.

If it's art or happy snaps, technical or stock, portraiture or amateur
photography that floats the boat; having a good, solid grasp of the
technical merits of your tools is important to your ultimate
satisfaction with the results.  Other than that are you just spinning
wheels?
With all the competition out there, knowing just how to tweak a shot
might make the difference between getting paid or not / getting
published or not.

I once agreed to help a photographer friend with a workshop (won't do
that again).  We spent two days with ten people who plunked a ton of
money down to be there.  On the last outing, in the late afternoon, we
trudge to a remote location and into a clearing.
He's helping them all. I'm over it and intend to get 'my' shot.
I survey the location, check my watch, wander away from the group (not
too far) and set up aiming in the opposite direction.  Some of them look
over and laugh, "Hey, the sun goes down in the West! Har, har, har."
‘Anybody can shoot a sunset.’ I say to myself.
I wait about forty minutes, meter, compose (didn't have to move the
tripod, just adjusted the tilt a little), and shoot two plates (4x5).
As I'm putting the neg carrier away I realize the group has migrated to
my spot, hoping to get a shot of the moon rising brilliantly over the
horizon -perfectly between two majestic cypress trees.
By the time I move it's about a third the size it was when I got my
shots. Har, har, har.
What knowledge was employed in this example?  Was it just experience? 
Did I use my underwear to clean the lens?  Was there a confluence of
technology, experience, and acumen utilized- pulling on every chord
available?

Each little part comprises the whole.  
What harm an additional piece of information?