Are these sharp?

DaelpixPhotography

DaelpixPhotography

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,801
Name
David
Edit My Images
No
Let's try and eliminate camera shake and object movement first...

a) Were you using a tripod?

b) Was it windy?
 
Last edited:
They don't look very sharp but your shutter speed is too low so I'd address that before coming to any conclusion about the lens.
 
Without seeing the originals it's hard to say. I can't see too much evidence of camera shake tbh but if it was windy the leaves could be showing slight movement. However, they just look like poor upload quality to me. Are these processed RAW or jpegs? If processed what resolution and quality did you export at? If SOOC jpeg what were the jpeg settings? Also with gloomy days like this images aren't going to look as sharp as a nice bright day.
 
They look sharp to me. I can pick out the stones on the bridge. They lack some contrast and that can make things look soft, plus the light wasnt particular good and that also doenst help with perceived sharpness. Other than that, i dont see anything to complain about (at this size).
What do 100% crops look like?

I do agree about shutter speed if hand holding. The 5D4 seems to need a bit faster than the 5D3 (thats my experience), but thats not to say you cant hand hold (if you did) at this speed. I do it all the time with the same lens.
 
Impossible to judge sharpness (properly) on a screen. They look acceptably sharp at the posted size but I'm not sure how well they'd stand up to large printing.
 
Nod said:
Impossible to judge sharpness (properly) on a screen. They look acceptably sharp at the posted size but I'm not sure how well they'd stand up to large printing.
Click to expand...

This really. I can see areas that are sharp enough at the presented images.
 
If you really want to test it out get it in a studio with good controllable lighting.

You'll then see the good and bad.
 
It's the first time out with the camera and new lens.

On tripod
Windy and raining
I always shoot RAW, exported as JPEGs on Flickr
Looks more in focus on the grass than any where else. except from the first shot
Couldn't care less about Nikon.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
If you really want to test it out get it in a studio with good controllable lighting.

You'll then see the good and bad.
Click to expand...

I could but I can't think of any where
 
Why shoot at 1/30th if you have concerns about the lens?
 
snerkler said:
Without seeing the originals it's hard to say. I can't see too much evidence of camera shake tbh but if it was windy the leaves could be showing slight movement.
Click to expand...


:plus1:
 
These images have been downsized by 400% linearly, i.e. by a factor of 16 in terms of image MP. So even if they weren't at all sharp in the originals, it ought to have been possible to process them in such a way as to be very sharp when downsized so much. Of course whether or not downsizing makes an image sharper or softer depends very much on how it was downsized. So it this a question about how to avoid the image softening a careless downsizing can produce? Looking at the variations in ISO and shutter speed between the images I suspect not. I suspect it's about what camera settings etc. are appropriate for a sharp image, or perhaps whether lens itself is capable of sharp images. If so, then it's impossible to judge, given such a severe downsizing process.
 
How far can you see across a Yorkshire Dales valley in the rain? The fore-ground grass and wall look to have plenty of detail, but detail becomes less clear the further back in the image you look - probably due to rain, mist, low cloud etc. It's not exactly wonderful light either; plus it's shot at 1/30 sec, so any slight vibration or movement could detract from the sharpness. I think you'll have to wait for a sunny day to test your lens, perhaps use a shutter speed of 1/250th or above if shooting hand-held , or use a sturdy tripod at any speed below that (jut to rule camera shake out) and try again?
 
Last edited:
admirable said:
Why shoot at 1/30th if you have concerns about the lens?
Click to expand...

Only my first time out with the lens and still getting used to the camera and the settings.


Was going to go out this aft but didn't, wish I had now. Maybe tomorrow, but is supposed to rain when I get out of work.

Edit: Oops I lied about the first image (bridge). It wasn't cropped.
 
Last edited:
markgodley said:
Do you mean 1/3 into the frame?
Click to expand...

I was asking the question because I would like
to know to which third rule David is referring to.

Maybe the 1/3 : 2 /3 rule?
 
Looking at the images on Flickr, they seem to sharp enough.................certainly for a computer screen

Is printing them a better test? How are you going to show these images? If they are going to be a large print, then don't forget you have to stand back to see the picture anyway...........

They look good to me, but then I know nothing................:-)
 
This is a crude suggestion but if shooting handheld you'll generally get acceptable results shooting at a shutter speed of 1/250th with auto ISO, VR on if your lens or camera has it. There are more complicated ways of working out correct shutter speed for different focal lengths but the crude method is generally ok. The fact is if you're shooting landscapes you'll ideally want to use a tripod to minimise shake further. But concentrating solely on sharpness isn't a great way to go about things, some fantastic images can actually be quite soft. Some photographers can be obsessive about technique and sharpness but fall short on composition and emotion in their shots, I say concentrate on achieving the latter and learn technique along the way
 
Scirocco_09 said:
This is a crude suggestion but if shooting handheld you'll generally get acceptable results shooting at a shutter speed of 1/250th with auto ISO, VR on if your lens or camera has it. There are more complicated ways of working out correct shutter speed for different focal lengths but the crude method is generally ok. The fact is if you're shooting landscapes you'll ideally want to use a tripod to minimise shake further. But concentrating solely on sharpness isn't a great way to go about things, some fantastic images can actually be quite soft. Some photographers can be obsessive about technique and sharpness but fall short on composition and emotion in their shots, I say concentrate on achieving the latter and learn technique along the way
Click to expand...
Shooting 1/250 sec for landscapes?

General rule of thumb is your shutter speed should be at least your focal length i.e. 125mm - 1/125sec. 60mm 1/60 sec. Some people can manage slow some need it slightly fast.
 
With todays high mp counts and people not being able to resist pixel peeping any movement blur could be visible and whilst whole images taken at 1/60 might look good on closer viewing maybe motion blur could be visible as 1/60 may not be enough to freeze any even slowly moving thing. I try to keep above 1/100 now even with lenses of 50mm or wider unless the thing I'm taking a picture of definitely isn't moving at all and isn't going to be affected by any air movement.
 
markgodley said:
Shooting 1/250 sec for landscapes?

General rule of thumb is your shutter speed should be at least your focal length i.e. 125mm - 1/125sec. 60mm 1/60 sec. Some people can manage slow some need it slightly fast.
Click to expand...

I said it was crude...but yes, when I've been in a lazy mood I've shot in the way I described and the shots are very sharp, at different focal lengths. It's not texbook and I'd recommend a tripod for more considered pictures
 
Dael_Pix said:
Taken at f8 with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8. I focused three thirds into the frame, would you say these are sharp? <snip>
Click to expand...
I would say that you should forget about sharpness. There isn't any such thing - what people mean by sharpness is a collection of unrelated things: focus, contrast, micro-contrast, small circles of confusion, edge effects, visible detail, to name some of them.

Once your picture is in focus, sharpness, such as it is, doesn't matter unless you are involved in highly technical work. Composition is important, story is important, exposure is important, sharpness is not.

Henri Cartier-Bresson famously said that sharpness is a bourgeois concept. He became one of the most famous photographers of all time and never concerned himself with "is it sharp?".
 
As I've said before, I think many of the most iconic photographs in history probably aren't 'razor sharp' by today's standards, but no one notices that because the subject matter and composition is so strong and/or the lighting is so captivating. This said, the OP asked were his images sharp, and most of the subsequent posts seem to have addressed that question. Breaking off into a discussion about whether or not sharpness is the be-all and end-all of photography is really a side issue here, and the answer to that should be fairly self-evident without having much of a debate about it.

From the point of view of the OP's original question, if you've just shelled out lots of money on a new lens then you'll probably want to make sure it's a good version before you start taking too many photos with it. I'm sure once he's ruled out camera shake and subject motion blur and taken some test shots at a higher shutter speed (and/or using a sturdy tripod) on a calm, clear, sunny day he'll have the answer he's looking for. :)
 
Last edited:
With respect to the above posters, some types of image need to be perceptibly sharp, while for others it's not important. However it is important to 'know your gear' and a part of that is knowing whether a lens can deliver images that are seen to be sharp or not. While HCB was a undoubtedly great photographer who had a distinctive style that incorporated unsharpness, if Ansell Adams had taken the same approach for his subjects then we'd never have heard of him.
 
I did mean I focused 1/3 in to the shots I took.

I thank everyone for their replies. I'll try my best in getting out and taking more photos with my new gear (on a tripod).

This shot was taken on a dull day, taken on the High Speed Burst mode.

500mm
f7.1
ISO 320
1/800

Duck Bath by Daelpix Photography, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Dael_Pix said:
I did mean I focused 1/3 in to the shots I took.

I thank everyone for their replies. I'll try my best in getting out and taking more photos with my new gear (on a tripod).

This shot was taken on a dull day, taken on the High Speed Burst mode.

500mm
f7.1
ISO 320
1/800

Duck Bath by Daelpix Photography, on Flickr
Click to expand...

That's a nice picture and very sharp...
 
You have not chosen the easiest of subjects if you are trying to test a lens for sharpness, tiny little leaves in a forest don't pop from the background as a single leaf on a plain out of focus background. As for photographing in mist\fog do not expect ever to get ultra sharp images, in fog the fine drizzle acts as tiny lenses that defocus the scene. The trick to photographing fog\mist Is to be outside of the foggy area you are photographing.

I'm 99% sure the lens is OK and I'm also 99% sure that an understanding of what makes a photograph look sharp will help improve your photography. Many photographers mistakenly believe that an in focus shot will always be sharp.
 
One of my favourite cameras is the Fuji x100,I like the photos from it because to me they look not too digital in the sense of oversharpened and remind me of the look my old film camera made,that's not to say a sharp look isn't to be something to aim for but it's a very tasteful choice down to the individual and not to me anyway the holy grail,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top