jerseydrew

which would you give on if you had to? because i have seen great composition images that lack sharpness and they are still okay. i have seen stunningly sharp images that are blah with composition and they are okay. i am somewhat ok with noise because i understand that in low light it will just be there and you have to deal with it if you want the shot at all.

Snowwolfe

Being sharp and in focus does nothing if the photograph is not enjoyable to look at.

Oh 2 Fun

So......a couple of examples I have where I can't tell if the soft focus is a problem with the auto-focus or because of the weather and subject. But......regardless, I still am drawn to them.

Nitro-C5

I agree with what others have said. To that point I like to contrast the difference between something that is a "sharpness" issue vs. a "focus" issue. To that point I have many photos that I think are pretty good but not really that sharp due to potentially several reasons (soft lens, atmospheric haze, poor post processing techniques, extremely high ISO then softening too much)...but (for me anyway) if I miss focus I always delete.

Although sharpness is important, IMO the subject matter is significantly more important. A less sharp photo of "something" is better than a crystal clear shot of "nothing"

Below is probably one the best examples I can think of as an example. It not is a sharp image but off the charts significant.

Snowwolfe

My photograph of a wolf caught in a snow storm on the first post in the Wildlife sub section is an example of where softness actually helps an image.

StayinStock

I think it really depends on what your photographing and what your doing it for. If im shooting for a high end client on an automotive shoot it better be tack sharp where it needs to be. If I'm shooting a landscape for myself its not nearly as important.