The infatuation with 'sharpness'

I hope the judge was looking for sharpness of focus rather than trud polishing attempts!
 
fabs said:
Interestingly, it was competition night at camera cub last night and I lost count of the number of times the judge used the word 'sharp'. It seemed to be the 1st thing he looked for in the entries.
Click to expand...

It does annoy me,I might have said something :confused: :)
 
Phil V said:
I think you can take the feedback you've already recieved as the truth. As everyone made exactly the same comment.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil,there were only 2 votes and zero comments before i posted here..hehe
hope my thread can give a benchmark on the level of acceptable sharpening..lol
 
Turbonetics said:
Thanks Phil,there were only 2 votes and zero comments before i posted here..hehe
hope my thread can give a benchmark on the level of acceptable sharpening..lol
Click to expand...

It was interesting to see how much better it looked full size and how much the small version looked over-sharpened by comparison.
 
Flickr over sharpens the reduced file sizes... very annoying. Full size is far less aggressive with sharpening. Still a touch too much if you ask me. Looks like it's been sharpened to try and make up for loss of definition due to cropping. Although it is clearly sharpened... it's still clearly not sharp... which makes my point really. It's a pretty pointless exercise. You can't really add what's not there. You're just making it looks sharpened... not sharp.

If you're obsessed with sharpness, there are only a few things you can actually do to gain more of it:

  • Get better lenses
  • become obsessed with shooting everything at f5.6, on a tripod, with a release and mirror lock-up
  • Never crop
  • Move up to a larger format

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


Or just concentrate on actually making the images mean something by thinking about why you're taking it in the first place, and stop worrying about sharpness. If you're doing everything you can to keep stuff sharp and you're still not happy... do what we did back in the days of film: Move to a larger format.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Flickr over sharpens the reduced file sizes... very annoying. Full size is far less aggressive with sharpening. Still a touch too much if you ask me. Looks like it's been sharpened to try and make up for loss of definition due to cropping. Although it is clearly sharpened... it's still clearly not sharp... which makes my point really. It's a pretty pointless exercise. You can't really add what's not there. You're just making it looks sharpened... not sharp.

If you're obsessed with sharpness, there are only a few things you can actually do to gain more of it:

  • Get better lenses
  • become obsessed with shooting everything at f5.6, on a tripod, with a release and mirror lock-up
  • Never crop
  • Move up to a larger format

Everything else is smoke and mirrors.


Or just concentrate on actually making the images mean something by thinking about why you're taking it in the first place, and stop worrying about sharpness. If you're doing everything you can to keep stuff sharp and you're still not happy... do what we did back in the days of film: Move to a larger format.
Click to expand...


Hi David,iam curious if your were referring to photos in my thread?
Thanks.
 
The first paragraph of my post was yes.... then the rest was just a general comment.
 
I think as a photographer you go through stages and worrying about sharpness is one of those stages. I had a couple of people point out that one or 2 of my images were great despite me worrying as they weren't pin sharp, but it is something some people judge on. Personally now, I do a very light unsharp mask just to counteract what is lost when resizing, that's it. I rarely do much to mine now, ultimately a slightly poor image seems to often look better if you just do the basics and leave it alone anyway. A lot of mine is animals and birds. They're live creatures, not stuffed - some movement is normal. I no longer panic if a wing isn't perfectly sharp, or if they've moved their beak. Because those photos look realistic, natural.

I did really learn my lesson when I did some for print - somebody told me to not sharpen as much as you think you need to and always check at 100%. They were right, following that advice, not going overboard my prints came out beautifully, if I've done so they were pin sharp on screen they'd have looked ridiculous printed. But I'm guessing an awful lot of newer photographers haven't printed any, not except on their own printer. Now I'd recommend everyone does some to see how they actually look.

When you consider how large on your screen a 6x4 print is, it's no wonder we worry so much.
 
Following on from the comment by that judge about images being sharp, could it be that he was looking for redeeming features so he could say something positive when the image was otherwise not too inspiring?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Following on from the comment by that judge about images being sharp, could it be that he was looking for redeeming features so he could say something positive when the image was otherwise not too inspiring?
Click to expand...

Maybe in the case of a few but he made the comment about many images that (IMHO of course) were very good.
 
Turbonetics said:
Would appreciate if u guys could help to make a poll and give your honest opinions on this thread of mine.
we know that sharpness is subjective to individual,thus would like to see how my eyes see things from the rest?
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/brown-throated-sunbird.518159/#post-5955955

Thank you :)
Click to expand...

They are sharp, perhaps oversharp. Ideal as a specimen photograph for study, but to me, neither of them have any life.
I have taken images of birds that are sharp as tacks straight out of the camera, and they look lifeless too.
If your reason for posting them was to see lots of detail, then you have done it, personally, I think they would have been more lifelike, sharpened or not, if they were doing something or you could induce some sense of movement somewhere.

Allan
 
Thanks all who commented on my photos on other thread.I shall do a general reply.
I understand that some of u mentioned about sharpness is not everything and some motion blur makes it more "real".
I understand what u meant..but the thread was just simply about the level of acceptable sharpness.I do have some shots of birds in flight,food in mouth,flapping of wings...etc.
but personally i feel if nothing on the image of a bird is sharp,the photo is as good as "nothing" and usually i won't keep them unless it was some kind of rare birds or record shot.
i have a photo of a bird which was perching and when the bird took off,i took a snapped of it...90% of the bird is actually in motion and only the feet(which was still on the branch about to took off) was still sharp enough and i find it pretty interesting to keep it :)

Iam pretty confident that the 2 images of the BTSB were sharp at least 90%.
I viewed them from my camera at 100% cropped and it was sharp as i was shooting RAW and import the LR,the sharpness seems to be defaulted and i always have to choose few of the best shots to do PP.
though iam not using the best set-up but iam sure should be good enough for bird photography.
i always shoot wide open first and slowly reduce my aperture to as low as F13 if possible.
the 2 shots were with a prime lens, mirror lock-up,cable release,tripod,F5.6 & F8,cropped about 50%-60%.Sometimes i would switched to MF for more precise focus.
most of the time i would cropped the images of birds to show more details because even if i shoot the BTSB at MFD,i will still crop at least abit more due to the size of the bird(About 15cm).
however,if a shot is taken "correctly" iam not afraid to do a heavy crop and the details can still be sharp.
moving to different format is not my choice at least in the near future :D

Personally i find that doing sharpening on animals with fur and birds can be challenging.
if done too mild,the details will not be nice and sharp but if done to heavy,it can really be an eyesore.
but if done correctly it is really very pleasing to the eyes.
this is something which i hope to brush up my skill on...haha
 
Last edited:
If an image is not in focus, then it cannot be sharp, incorrect or over sharpening on photos is usually down to pixel peeping, I wouldn't think that most printing would be able to replicate the effect
As sharpening occurs on the boundry of two brightness levels there are subjects where a little judical sharpening has a positive affect, birds where the the plumage can be enhanced if done properly, on portraits it seldom helps with the exception of possibly hair or eye lashes. Over use results in a "something doesn't look right" or artifacs etc.
If people want to use the the expression "a nice sharp image" then people should accept the compliment for what it is and appreciate what the person saying, not feel insulted because they have used a word which you may feel has different conertations.
 
Not taken the the wrong way at all, I only meant only that expanding a small section of an image to fill a screen and agonising over it - pixel peeping.
 
Mike54 said:
Not taken the the wrong way at all, I only meant only that expanding a small section of an image to fill a screen and agonising over it - pixel peeping.
Click to expand...

Yes but what does that have to do with sharpness? Not everyone is editing to 1024 pixels wide for Internet use, sometimes you actually have to know you have a sharp image and diving in to 100% is the only way to check that on a computer screen. I don't understand why you're lumping everyone who wants to check the sharpness of their images into the 'pixel peeper' category.
 
No, you mis-understand me, I'm not ctitising anyone, not my thing at all, The tread earlier was debating the use or overuse of sharpening and how it can detract from some images. I will and do sharpen where I think it appropriate, it can make an image crisp, or more defined, all I was trying to say was that because we have the ability to expand a digital image like never before it perhaps possible to get over concerned with any one aspect and perhaps take any post processing just a little too far; I certainly have in the past but try now to moderate what I attempt to do and keep more of the natural image.
As you say by expanding the image you can check for focus / definition / sharpnes call it what you will, and that is what we all do.
 
Ahh I see, now I understand after a slightly more in depth explanation! To be honest I think people can become overly concerned with pretty much any aspect of photography, I used to go crazy over things like sharpness and 'perfect' exposure but now I often think certain imperfections just add to the character of the image. Each to their own I guess!
 
Paul.I think we are very much of the same mind on that.
I have enjoyed the discussion and its made me think a little more before I type, to get the thought across clearly.
Have a good day :).
 
I'd say that 'sharpness' is not just a digital thing - it's very easy to print a B&W image as a split grade print, with the edges defined with a grade 5 contrast 'to bring out the edges' (quote from a lecturer recently!)

That said, it's often used as a yardstick as to the 'quality' of an image by non-photographers who want something nice to say about the pic, but don't know where to start!
 
I think one of the problems may be the different types of sharpness. I'm happy to say that I have been known to comment on softness in images posted for C&C and when I do, I mean it in the slightly missed focus or movement (camera or subject) way rather than the not put through the USM filter. I think (poor memory!) that I've also commented on oversharpenning when there have been definite auras round areas of high contrast. Both "sins" can (and do) spoil pictures. I know damn well that in my early digital days, I would sharpen images until they were outlined with Tipex - hopefully I've grown out of that now!
 
PMN said:
Ahh I see, now I understand after a slightly more in depth explanation! To be honest I think people can become overly concerned with pretty much any aspect of photography, I used to go crazy over things like sharpness and 'perfect' exposure but now I often think certain imperfections just add to the character of the image. Each to their own I guess!
Click to expand...

I got to agree with u.
sometimes imperfections can make an image look unique from the rest.
but then again sharpness,composition and exposure are terms that can't be left out in photography imo.
 
Mike54 said:
If an image is not in focus, then it cannot be sharp, incorrect or over sharpening on photos is usually down to pixel peeping, I wouldn't think that most printing would be able to replicate the effect
As sharpening occurs on the boundry of two brightness levels there are subjects where a little judical sharpening has a positive affect, birds where the the plumage can be enhanced if done properly, on portraits it seldom helps with the exception of possibly hair or eye lashes. Over use results in a "something doesn't look right" or artifacs etc.
If people want to use the the expression "a nice sharp image" then people should accept the compliment for what it is and appreciate what the person saying, not feel insulted because they have used a word which you may feel has different conertations.
Click to expand...

you are very right..that's why i usually check for an image sharpness and exposure first before i decide to keep or bin it.
but the most common mistake is that an image is already sharp but tend to over-sharpened.
 
Turbonetics said:
I got to agree with u.
sometimes imperfections can make an image look unique from the rest.
but then again sharpness,composition and exposure are terms that can't be left out in photography imo.
Click to expand...

It isn't a case of leaving them out, it's a case of using them effectively. Not having the entire fame sharp may convey a sense of movement, you might purposely underexpose to create a certain effect, you might compose in a 'non-standard' way to create a feeling of uneasiness or unrest.

How you use the various technical aspects of photography depends purely on what you're doing. Sharpness, exposure, composition and every other technical aspect of making a photo are just a means to an end and I think their use should generally be governed by artistic decisions, not technical ones.
 
PMN said:
It isn't a case of leaving them out, it's a case of using them effectively. Not having the entire fame sharp may convey a sense of movement, you might purposely underexpose to create a certain effect, you might compose in a 'non-standard' way to create a feeling of uneasiness or unrest.

How you use the various technical aspects of photography depends purely on what you're doing. Sharpness, exposure, composition and every other technical aspect of making a photo are just a means to an end and I think their use should generally be governed by artistic decisions, not technical ones.
Click to expand...

yes,i get what u mean.
it depends on what indiviual wants to achieve in an image...example we can shoot a car moving in stationary mode to show the driver in more details or panning mode to increase the background blur and wheel spin effect.
i was trying to say that, if nothing in an image is sharp to understand what the subject is,the exposure being off too much to figure out the subject and composition that doesn't shows a subject properly..etc is not an art,but poor skill imo.
 
Turbonetics said:
i was trying to say that, if nothing in an image is sharp to understand what the subject is,the exposure being off too much to figure out the subject and composition that doesn't shows a subject properly..etc is not an art,but poor skill imo.
Click to expand...

It's art if they say it's art. Doesn't mean it's good art, but it's still art. :)

Of course there's a big difference between having an intentional 'imperfection' and screwing a shot up through lack of technical ability, to be honest I thought it was kinda clear I was talking about doing things intentionally but perhaps I should have made it even clearer!
 
PMN said:
It's art if they say it's art. Doesn't mean it's good art, but it's still art. :)

Of course there's a big difference between having an intentional 'imperfection' and screwing a shot up through lack of technical ability, to be honest I thought it was kinda clear I was talking about doing things intentionally but perhaps I should have made it even clearer!
Click to expand...

u had phrase it in a nicer way..hehe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top