Much time is spent discussing lens and film resolving power and sharpness. It is a trap which I have not entirely avoided. I do however believe that any serious photographer should, as a start, spend time with Alfred Stieglitz. Between 1903 and 1917, Alfred Stieglitz produced 50 issues of Camera Work . The Minox, with current film, could technically produce most, if not all, of the images therein.

The apparent sharpness of a photograph is less based on the technical resolution of the image than on perception and expectation. Perception is affected by ones physical capabilities (some people can hear, and are disturbed by, the granularity in digital music), and by expectations (why do we step back from oil paintings and watercolors, and approach photographs?).

Producing "psychologically" sharp images has always been an exercise in compromise since optimizing one factor may impact negatively one or more of the others. In reality we are trying to get an image that is acceptable for the conditions under which it will be viewed. Some photographs are obviously soft or obviously sharp, and we accept them as such without need for further scrutiny. An image should have impact for its expressive value and not even raise a question of sharpness in the mind of the viewer. In this way, sharpness, local or overall, becomes a part of the expression, and is not the result of inadequate equipment or technique. Sharpness is part of the expressive value of Edward Steichen's The Thinker, .Alvin Langdon Coburn's The Bridge, Venice .or Spider-webs, .Alfred Stieglitz' The Terminal, .Edward Weston's Shells, .and Ansel Adams' Clearing Winter Storm.

Recently I have noticed a trend toward "oversharp" images in magazines which has led me to attempt a classification of different types of "photographic sharpness".

1. "8 x 10 contact print sharp" in which very fine detail is crisply but smoothly defined.
2. "35mm Tri-X sharp" in which the sharp grain lends to the feeling of sharpness in an image which has much less true detail.
3. "Unsharp Mask sharp" wherein edges are artificially enhanced (often obviously) to varying degrees.
4. Sharpness inferred from high contrast image components.

While much effort is expended to research and achieve sharpness, the unsharp elements can make a critical contribution to the character of the image. Little has been written to explain the character of "unsharpness". The unexplained partiality for one lens over another may well be explained by the way in which each manages out-of-focus elements within an image. My view is that, if the entire image is not sharp, the "sharp / fuzzy" relationship should be used as a tool much like "light / dark", "large / small", "near / far", complementary colors, etc. The composition of the fuzzy portion is certainly as important as the overall composition. It may be that in "out-of-focus" performance, the lens displays most profoundly its personality.

Another type of "fuzziness" is not really fuzziness at all but a blur created during exposure by moving the camera, letting the subject move, zooming, etc.