Image Quality - Looking for perfection...

[HoppyUK]

I never mentioned the creative aspects because I don't want to know about them. I'm not asking how to take good photos, improve my creativity, or capture anyone's soul. I'm talking about image quality and nothing else.

Any examples, I've left out, partly because they're rare and I have none to hand, and partly because I didn't want the question too focused on individual images.

I genuinely thought it might inspire some deeply constructive debate. Clearly I was wrong.

If you want best image quality, then you won't get that using a 7D Mk1 - or any other crop-format camera. It's a simple fact of physics that bigger is better when it comes to IQ - full-frame, good lenses, know what you're doing, and take care.

I'm not saying this is the be-all and end-all of good photography, far from it, but in terms of better image quality it will be a fair step in the right direction. Try it - take your memory card to a shop, step outside the door with a decent zoom on any Canon FF camera in good light and take a snap. Fit the same lens on your 7D, adjust zoom for same framing, and shoot the same picture again at same camera settings. Compare on PC

 

[mike weeks]

I never mentioned the creative aspects because I don't want to know about them. I'm not asking how to take good photos, improve my creativity, or capture anyone's soul. I'm talking about image quality and nothing else.

Any examples, I've left out, partly because they're rare and I have none to hand, and partly because I didn't want the question too focused on individual images.

I genuinely thought it might inspire some deeply constructive debate. Clearly I was wrong.

Some of the best most powerful photographs I have ever seen might well be denigrated for image quality, such as http://time.com/4485344/napalm-girl-war-photo-facebook/ or http://www.vam.ac.uk/users/sites/default/files/album_images/56366-large.jpg or http://www.nationalww2museumimages.org/web-assets/images/d-in-d-day-snapshot-405x248.jpg - you have not defined what you mean by image quality and therein lies the issue, what you think of as quality is not what others may think of as quality - define and hopefully you will get some interesting debate

Mike

 

[NDevon]

You've failed to tell us what you mean by 'professional quality' and ignored requests to show us what you mean.

I'm really not sure how much help anyone can be, when you're not explaining your question well at all....

...you have not defined what you mean by image quality and therein lies the issue, what you think of as quality is not what others may think of as quality - define and hopefully you will get some interesting debate

I think he has defined it - pin sharp, no noise. so many images we see are soft, deliberately so, they may well be pin sharp where the photographer intended but the rest of the image is soft with plenty of bokeh, although the images can look strong I'm guessing this isn't what the OP is after, instead an image where everything is clear, little to no noise, well lit, large and clear.

It's not about what you, I or anyone else define as perfect, it's simply the words the OP has chosen to use to ask the question. 'Perfect' may be wrong, in fact I'm sure it's wrong. It's obvious the best images ever taken were far from technically perfect, many were down to right place right time, in some cases they were most likely with a hell of a lot of luck, there was no time to tweak settings, change lens and judge the lighting. The photographers skill produced the best possible image and they become timeless. I don't think that's in any doubt, the OP isn't after an award winning image to get people talking for decades, it's about taking a technically sharp image with the right colour balance, saturation, contrast, and more.

I never mentioned the creative aspects because I don't want to know about them. I'm not asking how to take good photos, improve my creativity, or capture anyone's soul. I'm talking about image quality and nothing else....

See above - am I close? I'm guessing you've had most of the answers, probably all of them, and it's a combination of many things. He main one is probably the camera, you will probably need a full frame or maybe even a medium format camera with the best lenses to get what you want. The image will need to be well thought out rather than captured by luck, the light shouldn't matter, it depends on the image of course. Obviously you have more control using a tripod in a studio with strobes, but an outdoor scene on a dark stormy day could be just as good if the equipment was in the right hands.

In my opinion if you gave me the above mystical camera setup the images wouldn't Ben much better than I'm capturing already, in fact for quite some time they'd be worse as I would need to work out how to take the lens cap off! What I also know is upgrading a lens from a kit lens or something basic can making the image quality better, but there's so much more to it than that. Although I do know what you mean (well I think I do) I think it's about skill levels, the subject matter, the camera body, the lens, the camera settings, the exposure settings, the lighting, and probably other stuff I've got no clue about.

If you want support to buy a new lens go for it, but will it give you the holy grail shot you dream of - I personally doubt it. That's no reflection on your skill. It's about the range of other things, I guess if any of us needs to ask how to get the perfect shot we are not capable of making that picture just yet.

 

[juggler]

Again, I was addressing the issue of technical excellence only as that was what the OP was asking about. With a portrait shoot, maybe the photographer needs to spend significant time on lighting, positioning and all the other things i mentioned above before he points his camera at the subject.

For portraiture you can't separate the interaction from the other gubbins. They have to work together; it's one of the things which makes it (a) hard and (b) rewarding.

 

[juggler]

You originally said

I have been looking at other peoples images and thinking, "wow, how do they do that?"

and then

I never mentioned the creative aspects because I don't want to know about them. I'm not asking how to take good photos, improve my creativity, or capture anyone's soul. I'm talking about image quality and nothing else.

I'm confused now. What's the difference between a high quality photo and a good photo?

I admit I've been selective with my reading and quoting but in the absence of examples my point is still valid. Images that make me go wow have (a) great content and (b) fab light.

 

[The23rdman]

This picture was taken on my 40D (as far as I remember) using the 70-300mm L lens and a 1.4 converter.

Was sharpened in PP and I think it is as sharp as I could get it without going OTT.

0124 by petersmart on Talk Photography
​

It has gone OTT, I'm afraid. You can see it in the hair. This would be a prime example of an image that would benefit from a layer mask.

 

[The23rdman]

OP, have you mentioned the gear your using or posted examples of shots that you felt failed? Maybe some that you think are close? I honestly can't see how it's that difficult to get spectacular results with even a very basic DSLR and kit lens if you understand light.

 

[The23rdman]

If you want best image quality, then you won't get that using a 7D Mk1 - or any other crop-format camera. It's a simple fact of physics that bigger is better when it comes to IQ - full-frame, good lenses, know what you're doing, and take care.

I'm not saying this is the be-all and end-all of good photography, far from it, but in terms of better image quality it will be a fair step in the right direction. Try it - take your memory card to a shop, step outside the door with a decent zoom on any Canon FF camera in good light and take a snap. Fit the same lens on your 7D, adjust zoom for same framing, and shoot the same picture again at same camera settings. Compare on PC

But what is "best" Richard? It's entirely subjective. There is no way that the OP should be struggling to get noise-free images with clarity and sharpness with a 7D.

 

[Nostromo]

If all you're ever after is crisp, pin sharp, no noise images then maybe you are missing the point of photography (in my mind anyway). Photography has got to be more than just a photo. I'm sure i could spend many thousands of pounds (which i haven't got) on equipment, to get that super pin sharp shot, but what's the point if it's not interesting in anyway.

 

[The23rdman]

If all you're ever after is crisp, pin sharp, no noise images then maybe you are missing the point of photography (in my mind anyway). Photography has got to be more than just a photo. I'm sure i could spend many thousands of pounds (which i haven't got) on equipment, to get that super pin sharp shot, but what's the point if it's not interesting in anyway.

I think the OP may be equating those characteristics with photography that matters. Freeing oneself from those technical restraints and simply learning how to see a shot will have a far greater impact on his work than any mythical search for perfection, but I'm sure you agree.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

While an emotive image will always be more interesting than a technically perfect, pin sharp image, there's nothing to say that an image can't be both (check out the images of Ansel Adams and the other F64 group of photographers for examples). In my eyes, absolute sharpness will always be secondary (if not even less of a priority) to the actual content of the photograph, but if I can achieve both - happy days. I don't think sharpness is something that should be strived for at the expense of anything else, but there agin I don't think anyone on here is from what I can see.

I think we've covered the necessary elements that make a sharp image - lens, sensor, aperture, shutter speed, tripod / stabilisation, sharpening, etc, In and of themselves, they don't make a great image, just a technically good one, but if these can be combined with superior creative vision (for lack of a better expression), then you're on track.

 

[StephenM]

For a great many years, the technically "best" print I had was from a box brownie. There were three factors that I think were significant in the stunning quality:
1. The degree of enlargement was small. It was a 4.75" x 6.5" print (with a white border) from a 2.25" square negative - say about 2x enlargement.
2. I used a flash bulb (this was about 1961!).
3. It was printed professionally.

The small degree of enlargement matters. The next print I produced that matched it was a 3"x4" print from 35mm (in 1966) - again, not much enlargement. I discovered early on that I wasn't capable of getting a sharp negative hand held with a 35mm camera and a 50mm lens at less than 1/250th second. OK, it might be that the camera had a mighty kick (Exakta, no instant return mirror) but I could see the difference between 1/125th and 1/250th. So much for the "1/focal length" rule! I reused a different box camera for one film as a student. Contact prints (say 2"x3") were fine, but go up to 10"x8" and the results were soft.

If you can see the difference between a cropped sensor and a full frame one, I'd bet that that is because the degree of enlargement is greater. The next prints I made that equalled or exceeded those early ones only came when I moved to a larger film size and enlarged less.

Subjectively, tonal range and contrast play a big part in making an image look sharp. A contrasty image with low resolution looks better than a low contrast, high resolution one.

I think my starting point in your position would be to look at the jpgs straight out of the camera. They will have had some sharpening applied, and the camera maker will have gone to some trouble to make the jpgs look good (if only because that's how people will compare cameras in a shop, viewing the jpg on the screen on the back). You can get an awful lot wrong with bad processing of a raw file, and the jpg is at least a known starting point.

See what happens if you use a tripod as well.

 

[HoppyUK]

But what is "best" Richard? It's entirely subjective. There is no way that the OP should be struggling to get noise-free images with clarity and sharpness with a 7D.

Image quality, in the context of this thread, is not subjective - you can see it and measure it, put numbers on it if you like. He spelled it out right at the top - "What I'm talking about is completely noise-free images, super smooth, yet super-duper, ultra sharp." I'm not sure why so many people seem to be saying these things don't matter.

I think I probably agree that the OP should be able to get very high image quality with a 7D etc though, even if technically better options are available. Maybe it's a question of technique, that's obviously got to be top drawer, but if the OP was to post links to examples, I have a hunch that the key difference would be light. Good light, great light, makes a massive difference. That's harder to pin down and often depends on the kind of subject*, but you know it when you see it and experienced photographers understand it, can describe it, manipulate it and even create it. Needs examples though

*the 'right' light, eg the war pictures Mike Weeks linked above. Probably the opposite of what most people would describe as good light, but actually great light for those subjects.

 

[Alastair]

I'm not sure why so many people seem to be saying these things don't matter

Sharp images of fuzzy concepts and all that jazz..

If you want best image quality, then you won't get that using a 7D Mk1 - or any other crop-format camera

I'll disagree with you on this. Whilst most crop sensor cameras may fall into that description, the Sigma Merrills will beat or at the very last hold their own against almost all full-frame cameras for the technical criteria the OP has defined. A DP2M would solve the OP's occasional ponderings about image quality and leave him free to pursue other worries.

 

[HoppyUK]

Sharp images of fuzzy concepts and all that jazz..

Yes, I agree - just that wasn't the OP's question! I remember interviewing a top professional for a magazine article, and got talking about a well known rival's work. "Oh yes", he said enthusiastically, "his pictures are always very sharp!" What sounded like a compliment was actually a huge put-down.

I'll disagree with you on this. Whilst most crop sensor cameras may fall into that description, the Sigma Merrills will beat or at the very last hold their own against almost all full-frame cameras for the technical criteria the OP has defined. A DP2M would solve the OP's occasional ponderings about image quality and leave him free to pursue other worries.

Maybe. Sometimes The Sigma's Foveon sensor problem is certainly not sharpness, but the way that all aspects of image quality fall to pieces at even moderate ISOs. I do wonder though, if things would be different if the likes of Sony or Canon had put their weight behind Foveon. We may never know.

 

[The23rdman]

Image quality, in the context of this thread, is not subjective - you can see it and measure it, put numbers on it if you like. He spelled it out right at the top - "What I'm talking about is completely noise-free images, super smooth, yet super-duper, ultra sharp." I'm not sure why so many people seem to be saying these things don't matter.

I think I probably agree that the OP should be able to get very high image quality with a 7D etc though, even if technically better options are available. Maybe it's a question of technique, that's obviously got to be top drawer, but if the OP was to post links to examples, I have a hunch that the key difference would be light. Good light, great light, makes a massive difference. That's harder to pin down and often depends on the kind of subject*, but you know it when you see it and experienced photographers understand it, can describe it, manipulate it and even create it. Needs examples though

*the 'right' light, eg the war pictures Mike Weeks linked above. Probably the opposite of what most people would describe as good light, but actually great light for those subjects.

What I'm really saying re IQ, is that it's a scale that goes up and up. When do we stop and say this is 'perfection'? Crop sensor, 35mm equivalent sensor? MF? LF? I absolutely agree regarding light - said it myself, but the chase for technical perfection is a road that cannot end.

 

[Alastair]

Yes, I agree - just that wasn't the OP's question! I remember interviewing a top professional for a magazine article, and got talking about a well known rival's work. "Oh yes", he said enthusiastically, "his pictures are always very sharp!" What sounded like a compliment was actually a huge put-down.

If the first thing someone says/remarks about one of my images is "That's sharp" I consider it a failure.

Comments about sharpness are the last resort, when there's no other redeeming feature to hang on to.

 

[Phil V]

If the first thing someone says/remarks about one of my images is "That's sharp" I consider it a failure.

Comments about sharpness are the last resort, when there's no other redeeming feature to hang on to.

Like an X factor contestant who just poured all their talent into a five minute song to be met with 'you certainly look gorgeous tonight'

 

[HoppyUK]

If the first thing someone says/remarks about one of my images is "That's sharp" I consider it a failure.

Comments about sharpness are the last resort, when there's no other redeeming feature to hang on to.

And what if they say it's not sharp? With very few exceptions, most would say that's also a failure.

The quest for sharpness has obsessed photographers for ever.

 

[dancook]

Focus stacking for landscapes - just one way to get better sharpness over image without spending money..

Oh polarising filter, may also help with landscapes, something not achievable with PP.

 

[Alastair]

And what if they say it's not sharp? With very few exceptions, most would say that's also a failure.

If the first comment they make is about sharpness, it's a failure.

Whether that comment is about how sharp it or or how sharp it's not, the notional sharpness of the image should never be the first thing that grabs the attention with an image.

The quest for sharpness has obsessed photographers for ever.

No, it was rejected by a few. The Photo-Secession and pictorialists had an at best ambivalent relationship with sharpness, and there was that embarrassing fashion in the early-80s for extreme soft focus.

 

[Jelster]

On the subject of light, that is something I do think about, and it's one of those things where the camera will not come out of the bag if the light is bad. It's definitely something I can learn more about though. I started reading Strobist again though other day, so who knows, I might delve into that.

I honestly thought this was a question most people would relate to, and would have a wealth of advice on. Or at least I thought a small portion would have advice, as 95% of images I see are not what I would call professional quality.

I honestly think it's all about what it depends on. Right now I'm thinking of getting some Autumn shots that will hang on the wall. That doesn't mean they have to be "perfect" technically, just perfect for their use. Do I want to produce an image that many of my peers think is fantastic ? Well yes, of course, but that's not what I actually strive for in my photography.

I will say that you sound a little like me, in that I can be my harshest critic.

 

[woof woof]

And what if they say it's not sharp? With very few exceptions, most would say that's also a failure.

The quest for sharpness has obsessed photographers for ever.

Well there you go then.

I suppose it depends what you want to achieve. Pixel peeping and glorying in the technicalities of what you can achieve with the gear could be an end in itself and there's nothing wrong with that. Ordinary people looking at your pictures may or may not notice or care and if they do notice some may not be happy, that's the reaction I've had before when taking portraits of women. What they very often don't want is every line, flaw and detail captured and displayed in razor sharpness.

I think sharpness is overrated much of the time. YMMV. Such is life. There's room for all sorts. yardy yardy yarda.

 

[petersmart]

If you want best image quality, then you won't get that using a 7D Mk1 - or any other crop-format camera. It's a simple fact of physics that bigger is better when it comes to IQ - full-frame, good lenses, know what you're doing, and take care.

But that doesn't take into account a number of things, pixel density being a very important consideration in terms of sharpness, dynamic range and noise.

For instance the Canon 7D MkII and the Canon 5Ds have almost the same pixel density so the 7D MkII so the 7D2 could be considered as editing a part of a 5Ds photo, unless you are saying that you shouldn't crop a photo?

But neither compares to the qualities of the Nikon D750 so which actual camera would you recommend since these are very great differences with the Nikon giving far greater latitude when it comes to noise in the shadows?

These days there are so many variables that it's almost impossible to take a stand and say that best image quality means you must use a full frame camera.
.

 

[petersmart]

... the chase for technical perfection is a road that cannot end.

Mixed metaphors there 23 - just be careful you don't collapse on that road and get run over by a truck carrying the latest super-duper cameras!
.

 

[HoppyUK]

If the first comment they make is about sharpness, it's a failure.

Whether that comment is about how sharp it or or how sharp it's not, the notional sharpness of the image should never be the first thing that grabs the attention with an image.

No, it was rejected by a few. The Photo-Secession and pictorialists had an at best ambivalent relationship with sharpness, and there was that embarrassing fashion in the early-80s for extreme soft focus.

Okay then, only 99% of photographers. As a magazine editor, I once published a portfolio of deliberately out of focus images. They were nudes, which added to the intrigue I guess, but there were howls of protest and derision, and even now people still remind me about it! The magazine was Camera, circa 1980.

Soft focus is not the same as unsharp at all. I would argue it's actually a way of manipulating light - the way that there's a core of sharpness surrounded by softer halo as highlights are spread into shadows.

But that doesn't take into account a number of things, pixel density being a very important consideration in terms of sharpness, dynamic range and noise.

For instance the Canon 7D MkII and the Canon 5Ds have almost the same pixel density so the 7D MkII so the 7D2 could be considered as editing a part of a 5Ds photo, unless you are saying that you shouldn't crop a photo?

But neither compares to the qualities of the Nikon D750 so which actual camera would you recommend since these are very great differences with the Nikon giving far greater latitude when it comes to noise in the shadows?

These days there are so many variables that it's almost impossible to take a stand and say that best image quality means you must use a full frame camera.
.

To make proper comparisons, you obviously have to compare like with like in terms of sensor generation, as well as size. It's really sheer physical sensor area that has most effect on sharpness regardless, but dynamic range, shadow detail and ISO performance etc, newer sensors of all shapes and sizes are much better on those aspects. With or without AA filter too - that has an impact on micro-detail.

And no, you absolutely shouldn't crop if maximum image quality is priority - that's just throwing away the benefits of larger sensors. It's not really about pixels (within reason), but image area and the reduced degree of enlargement necessary. Bigger sensors collect more light, reducing noise and extending dynamic range, while lenses don't have to work so hard and deliver higher contrast images (basic lens MTF theory).

 

[Alastair]

Soft focus is not the same as unsharp at all.

It shouldn't be.. but I still shudder at the memory of some of those '80s suburban studio shots..

I used to work with a guy who had one if the worst examples of '80s studio photography I've ever seen as the photo of his wife on his desk, not just soft focus but star-effect and zoom-burst as well. Her eyes didn't so much follow you round the room as lurk in the corner of your vision making Trump-like small hand gestures and mouthing faint insults whilst wearing a scary clown costume..

 

[Ed Sutton]

Okay then, only 99% of photographers. As a magazine editor, I once published a portfolio of deliberately out of focus images. They were nudes, which added to the intrigue I guess, but there were howls of protest and derision, and even now people still remind me about it! The magazine was Camera, circa 1980.

Careful. That's perilously close to opening the 'is photography art?' worm can!

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

If all you're ever after is crisp, pin sharp, no noise images then maybe you are missing the point of photography

That is not what I'm after at all.

What I'm really saying re IQ, is that it's a scale that goes up and up. When do we stop and say this is 'perfection'? Crop sensor, 35mm equivalent sensor? MF? LF? I absolutely agree regarding light - said it myself, but the chase for technical perfection is a road that cannot end.

Anyone that knows me, would tell you that I haven't the slightest intention of chasing perfection. I've no interest in investing the time and money required to get even close. However, what I would like, is to arm myself with a better understanding of the ingredients, so that I can at least attempt to move a little further up the scale, improving the overall quality of my photos.

I see photos all the time that people have put a lot of work into, and in some respects they look great. But then I think, they're a little soft, or they're a bit noisy... And if I were a publisher, I wouldn't print them. If you have two identical images, one has a crap finish, and the other doesn't; which do you chose? At the end of the day, the vast majority of us are looking for some kind of quality in our photos.

Thanks for all the constructive comments in this thread. And I'm glad there is at least some debate going on.

Personally, I think my own weak spot is probably out in the field. So I'm probably going to get myself some filters, use the tripod a little more. Experiment with some actual photographic techniques, and see what happens.

 

[Phil V]

Anyone that knows me, would tell you that I haven't the slightest intention of chasing perfection. I've no interest in investing the time and money required to get even close. However, what I would like, is to arm myself with a better understanding of the ingredients, so that I can at least attempt to move a little further up the scale, improving the overall quality of my photos.

Anyone reading your opening post would never guess this.

IMHO this entire thread has been one of the strangest I can remember, you appear to be asking how you could achieve technical perfection above all other considerations and now you tell us you don't really care and that it should presumably be obvious to us.

 

[ashtennisguru]

Watched an episode of The Grid, Scott Kelby's blind critique show. They were talking at one point about noise and how people get too het up about it and that there is nearly always going to be some noise in a digital image, also at no point did they grit a photo for looking a little soft (and there were a few that you could argue were). Where the biggest and most sensible pieces of crit came from where when people had submitted a photo of a boring subject, with a boring background on a day with boring light.

So, if you are chasing photographic "perfection", once you have some basic idea of how to make the camera work and produce a well exposed image - go and stand in front of more interesting things, in more interesting places at days/times with more interesting light. It sounded obvious to me me when I heard it, but it's still something I am going to hold closer going forwards and endeavour to do much more often.

 

[GeoffMoorePhotography]

... So, if you are chasing photographic "perfection", once you have some basic idea of how to make the camera work and produce a well exposed image - go and stand in front of more interesting things, in more interesting places at days/times with more interesting light.

Best photographic advice ever given in my opinion.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

IMHO this entire thread has been one of the strangest I can remember, you appear to be asking how you could achieve technical perfection above all other considerations and now you tell us you don't really care and that it should presumably be obvious to us.

Nowhere in this thread have I said any of that. I was looking for some discussion and insight into one aspect of photography; the technical image quality. In particular, in relation to image sharpness and lack of noise (or at least the components which make up the perception of this).

How much importance I put on it, is besides the point. And I'd like to keep it on topic, if possible.

 

[Phil V]

. And I'd like to keep it on topic, if possible.

Like a few of us have said:
I don't have a clue what you think you're asking but it's not what we're reading.

Nowhere in this thread have I said any of that. I was looking for some discussion and insight into one aspect of photography; the technical image quality. In particular, in relation to image sharpness and lack of noise (or at least the components which make up the perception of this)...

The thread is titled:
Image Quality - Looking for Perfection
And this is your words...

...
What I'm talking about is completely noise-free images, super smooth, yet super-duper, ultra sharp.

It's the kind of quality that sets apart a seasoned pro from your average amateur photographer.

And you've offered no more clues - other than to keep telling people we misunderstand when we address issues of image quality.

Anyone that knows me, would tell you that I haven't the slightest intention of chasing perfection. I've no interest in investing the time and money required to get even close. However, what I would like, is to arm myself with a better understanding of the ingredients, so that I can at least attempt to move a little further up the scale, improving the overall quality of my photos.

It wouldn't be possible IMHO to create a post more 'on-topic'

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

Thanks for your input.

 

[Alastair]

Thanks for your input.

Any chance of the requested input regarding links to images you consider to be perfect?

It's a pretty one sided debate so far, with everyone else contributing and you just replying we're all wrong.

 

[Urban Grimshaw]

Any chance of the requested input regarding links to images you consider to be perfect?

Like I say, I don't have any. And I'd rather not focus the thread on individual images that I'm not convinced are suitable.

If you'd like to post any examples of what you think makes great technical image quality in a photograph, and why, then please do. This is everyone's discussion.

It's a pretty one sided debate so far, with everyone else contributing and you just replying we're all wrong.

Is it? I can appreciate that there are many, many variables in this - and I expected a wide range of answers. The whole problem is that I don't quite know what I'm describing, which is the whole point in the thread. So I'm interested in all opinions and what this is to different people. And there has been some valuable input.

However, many comments are suggesting that I shouldn't be interested in the answers at all, that I'm 'sad' for looking for them, and that I should just concentrate on being more creative. It's not really constructive. I posted another thread asking about tripods. It's like replying to that and saying, You don't need a tripod, you just need to be more interesting... Doesn't matter if the pictures are a bit blurry.

Anyway, for whatever reason, whether I've failed to articulate myself or not, I'm not feeling this topic is progressing very positively! So for the time being I think I shall be seeking inspiration elsewhere.

Thanks all.

 

[Ed Sutton]

You start off by saying:

I have been looking at other peoples images and thinking, "wow, how do they do that?"

And later when asked to show examples:

Like I say, I don't have any. And I'd rather not focus the thread on individual images that I'm not convinced are suitable.

The whole problem is that I don't quite know what I'm describing, which is the whole point in the thread

If you can't point us to any pictures which illustrate it the whole thread is rather pointLESS.