I have seen a few comments go by where the term clarity is being used where I would have used 'sharp'. (as in: 'great clarity' .. as opposed to 'very sharp')Are people using clarity meant to mean sharpness? Clarity to me is a grading measuring imperfections. (inclusions in diamonds, dirt in water).
I suppose that this definition could be applied to a photograph but given the relative subjective nature of imperfections in a photo I am not sure.

Any comments?

(And the usual disclaimer that if this is covered elsewhere please forgive me .. I sorta looked but nothing showed up)

To me clarity in a photo is the lack of haze, flares and blooms. But sharpness is usually defined as clarity of detail. Hence the confusion.

while it would be wrong for me to speak for others .. I'll do it anyway

I "expect" an image's subject to be focused\sharp (there are exceptions, of course) .. so clarity, for me, would be a combination of several traits found in an image .. color fidelity, depth, focus

it's one of those .. you can't quite put your finger on it but you know when you are in the presence of clarity and you automatically remove your hat

Oh .. 'clarity of detail' ... that makes it ... umm ... clear, I guess. I will read it as that.

*is more confused than ever before*

It's like trying to revise the difference between precision and accuracy like they made us for our science test...

I will stick to 'clarity of detail' (i.e. sharpness) as the intended meaning, which I think is the intended meaning usually.

I guess I just dislike the sound of the term. Everything about a photo is artistic choice. Focus, colour fidelity, what have you. However, these are well defined things, focus can be sharp, or not. Colour can be true or not. But clarity?? Clear or not clear? Does this refer to the softness, the brightness, the incomprehensibility of subject or that there is dirt on the sensor??

I guess 'good' clarity is better than not though.

my head hurts