The infatuation with 'sharpness'

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
'Good Sharpness' – When did we become so infatuated with it ?

Partly rhetorical and whilst I suspect there's no definitive answer, I'm mainly throwing it out there for discussion…..

‘Very sharp’ seems to be one of the most common positives that people offer these days when giving appraisal on photographs.

I could be way off the mark here but thinking back to photography at College / Uni in the 80s and early 90s ‘sharpness’ (as a word) seldom cropped up.

Obviously the intention (generally) was to get your shot in focus and subsequently retain fine detail with enlarger focus etc, but I don’t recall ‘sharpness’ as being one of the key aspects when it came to giving or receiving critique of a finished print.

Modern metering, exposure, focus, IS/VR - you could argue we get it easy these days. Why not get on with composition instead ?

Don’t get me wrong – I’ve not got my ‘anti digital’ hat on, in fact I’m all in favour of ‘sharp’ shots and striving to retain detail within an image but why does sharpness seem to be the Holy Grail these days.

Sometimes it seems as though we're giving 'crit to kit' when there are so many other fundamental aspects and qualities to consider and appreciate.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
Don’t get me wrong – I’ve not got my ‘anti digital’ hat on, in fact I’m all in favour of ‘sharp’ shots and striving to retain detail within an image but why does sharpness seem to be the Holy Grail these days whilst there are so many other fundamental aspects and qualities to consider ?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has said other aspects of photography are not as important - they are! You should hear and read all discussion about great light, and then great subject. Great colour... great location, great idea... see?

However there are equipment centric discussions particularly on forums like this, and like you can imagine sharpness is rather important property of glass. It was difficult to measure that back in 80's (a loupe or very large prints) and now it is easy. Also back "in the day" you would probably have shot large or medium format to get proper sharp larger shots (A3 or more). I would guess not many at the college could afford it, certainly not many of us can today, but 35mm digital now shoots impressive stills.
 
Totally agree about the other fundamental aspects.

I'm just noting the popular trend these days for the apparent appreciation of sharpness above other things.
 
I was wondering the same thing. I don't think bring ultra sharp is critical to a photo. Particularly to a portrait. Before I get shot down focus (which is critical) and sharpness are not the same thing.
 
There does seem to be an increasing trend towards sharpening pictures to the extreme
I've seen many lovely pictures totally ruined by it and the comments all say how great they look :shrug:
 
boyfalldown said:
I was wondering the same thing. I don't think bring ultra sharp is critical to a photo. Particularly to a portrait. Before I get shot down focus (which is critical) and sharpness are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. My understanding is that focus area refers to the area of the image that's sharp, and that both an expensive lens and an inexpensive lens will result in the same focus, but not necessarily the same sharpness.

So what exactly is the difference (I suppose that by definition a sharp image has to be in focus, but a focussed image can be either soft or sharp)?.
 
I would wager it's because it's an easy, tangible comment that people can make.

To see if something is 'sharp' or not is something that is easy to learn. It's one of the first things we learn as digital photographers. Composition, colour, picture plane, motifs, they are all much more intangible, must harder to learn about and understand and much more subjective.

'It is sharp' is an easy and definitive subject to make. Something is either sharp or it is not.

'The use of repeating motifs is good' or 'the use of space between your subject and the picture plane is good' is far more subjective, far harder to understand and far more open to disagreement. Lots of people don't want to engage in debate about such things, so they keep it simple and obvious.
 
It's the photographic equivalent of the dancer/singer / on strictly/x factor being greeted with 'you look stunning' after a performance.

It means you got something 'right' even if the whole photo/performance is a bit crap.

Although the way some photographers obsess over gear and wider society becomes more image obsessed, they're both more of a compliment than they ought to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ped
I've no idea where the obsession comes from, but I'm sick of seeing over sharpened images, that much I do know. What is it with people when they just can not see that they are making their images look like hell?

I reckon it's because it's something relatively easy to attain without any appreciable skill.

Back in the day, if I wanted more sharpness, I'd shoot on medium format... if I wanted more still, I'd shoot on 5x4. Now... it's unsharp mask and high pass for most people. What they fail to realise is that it looks like crap unless done really well, and above all.. it doesn't really work at all. If you want more sharpness, you can't add what's not there.

I also wonder WHY they crave so much sharpness. Those that produce large images in print may well need it (and always have.. but they will probably understand that they need to be using the correct format), but why the obsession with it only to post images online? In fact.. why crave high end, full frame gear at all if you aren't even printing? The vast majority don't print at all, let alone print big.

I also don't understand why people comment on how sharp an image is when it's posted online as a JPEG no more than 1024 pixels across in this forum. How would you know???

I can't help but agree with the OP... there are so many more important things that make a photograph good... sharpness isn't all that important so long as it's not blatantly out of focus... not for images never destined to be printed anyway. I've seen some excellent 35mm images printed over 1 metre across in exhibitions.. not much sharpness there!!... 50 year old images shot on HP5.... they still look awesome.

STEP AWAY FROM THE UNSHARP MASK/HIGH PASS.... IT LOOKS CRAP!
 
Last edited:
insomniac said:
So what exactly is the difference (I suppose that by definition a sharp image has to be in focus, but a focussed image can be either soft or sharp)?.
Click to expand...


I always see the difference as a focused image is just that. It's an absolute. It's either in focus or it's not. It'sSharpness refers to local contrast along edges. You never hear of over focus
 
Focus is an absolute, I agree. However, sharpness for me is a product of resolution and format. It's either there, or it's not. Manipulating edge contrast fools no one... well.. it clearly does fool some... but that's their problem :)
 
Pookeyhead said:
However, sharpness for me is a product of resolution and format. It's either there, or it's not. Manipulating edge contrast fools no one... well.. it clearly does fool some... but that's their problem :)
Click to expand...

On a digital camera, particularly one with an AA filter I think you need to sharpen photos. But few do it well. That general technique of increasing edge contrast has been around a long time. I remember been shown it in 15th century art. It must fool some. ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
I also don't understand why people comment on how sharp an image is when it's posted online as a JPEG no more than 1024 pixels across in this forum. How would you know???
Click to expand...

It's just a thought, but some of us output primarily for web/screen viewing. The image is meant to be judged at X-pixels wide in a forum. That's how it's intended.
 
It's probably become such a common and obsessive element since the digital-age, with the ability to study the detail at '100% size' on a 30" screen.
 
I disagree... a high resolution image viewed 100% on a 30" screen makes it apparent that you don't need sharpness. It's viewing them on a crappy laptop screen that makes people think they need to over sharpen. I view my images when editing, at 100% or more on a 30" screen and I feel no need to add excessive sharpening, if any at all.

It's certainly a digital phenomena. Some people need to realise that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Give a box of tools to someone who doesn't know how to use them and they'll just play with them all.
 
Last edited:
Sharpness is for the all the gear no idea brigade,£20k spent on gear and all you get is look how sharp that is , no idea on the subject ,compostion,conditions etc,and as they say you cant polish a turd ,sorry just my take on it....although i do believe all digital images need a small amount of sharpening ,thats were it ends ,a small amount,just my opinion.
 
nothing wrong in having a sharp image....... or at least the important parts sharp..... as long as its not over sharpened and i think some folk dont know the difference. i do not like looking at an image that isnt sharp. in fact i hate looking at images that have no sharp part. one of the reasons i abhor abstract and these blurry tree type of "images" i use the term loosely. co there is no focus OR no sharpness. There is a case in a certain type of image for retaining an amount of softness ( babies and children for example ) but there should still be a certain amount of sharpness in them ( their eyes in particular) however like every other part of photography the amount of sharpness an image requires is subjective to the view..... just as the amount of focus is... i recently saw a hugely OOF hornbill( user error and camera movement) with so many comments saying " how clear how beautiful. so obviously it was to these people ( either that or they where just brown nosing)
I dont believe sharpness has anything to do with the gear you have. if you have cheaper lenses they are still well capable of producing a sharp image in the right situations. the trick is learning the best scenario's for using them
 
Last edited:
Most digital cameras will apply that sharpening for you... even if you shoot RAW it will embed metadata that presets sharpening for you in LR or ACR etc. (you ever noticed sharpness is never at zero?) There's no need to add more unless you really know what you're doing.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Most digital cameras will apply that sharpening for you... even if you shoot RAW it will embed metadata that presets sharpening for you in LR or ACR etc. (you ever noticed sharpness is never at zero?) There's no need to add more unless you really know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

You can just as easily tell it to set each image to zero though. And sharpen it properly ;). Thats not the same as saying 'add more'. Just a different way of doing it
 
CharlotteM said:
It's just a thought, but some of us output primarily for web/screen viewing. The image is meant to be judged at X-pixels wide in a forum. That's how it's intended.
Click to expand...
If that's the only final product, 1 MP is enough!
Yes, over sharpened images look wrong but not as bad as soft ones. Back in the '70s we always aimed for perfect focus at all stages but didn't have a button and slider to adjust it.
 
boyfalldown said:
You can just as easily tell it to set each image to zero though. And sharpen it properly ;). Thats not the same as saying 'add more'. Just a different way of doing it
Click to expand...


My point was: You don't really NEED to add sharpening.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Most digital cameras will apply that sharpening for you... even if you shoot RAW it will embed metadata that presets sharpening for you in LR or ACR etc. (you ever noticed sharpness is never at zero?) There's no need to add more unless you really know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

That's not enough though. I *always* sharpen my images both for print and web output. I have never taken a photograph that doesn't need appropriate sharpening for it's output display. I sharpen on input - the default that LR etc applies, and then I selectively sharpen sometimes when I process, and then I sharpen on output as well for the medium. That is how to do it correctly.
 
Nod said:
If that's the only final product, 1 MP is enough!
Click to expand...

Yes absolutely. I have sold lots of images through stock agencies from my first 2.9MP camera for web display. But you still have to shoot them well.

ETA: Having said that, I used to shoot images for web catalogues. I can categorically tell you that you will get a 'better' web image from a 5DMkII than a 5DMkI. Having more pixels to work with allows you to do more with them. If they're not there, you can't create them out of nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree. I regularly print for exhibition and it's never less than A2. I feel no need to sharpen.

CharlotteM said:
I can categorically tell you that you will get a 'better' web image from a 5DMkII than a 5DMkI. Having more pixels to work with allows you to do more with them. If they're not there, you can't create them out of nothing.
Click to expand...

You do realise there is absolutely no scientific basis for what you're saying? :) Once you have resized for web... those extra pixels are no longer there.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
You do realise there is absolutely no scientific basis for what you're saying? :) Once you have resized for web... those extra pixels are no longer there.
Click to expand...

If you need to manipulate an image before resizing it for web, it is better to have more pixels to work with than less. For example if you are isolating a jumper from a white background and dropping in a blind neck to make an invisible mannequin, then having more pixels to play with at full resolution will mean you get a better result. Just one example from my own experience.

More pixels to work with during processing means a better result when shrunk down in most cases, in my experience. I find it harder to work with images from my old 6MP camera than from my newer 18-something camera (or whatever it is, I don't know).
 
My comment was mearly based on the OP asking when we became infatuated with sharpness and missing the fundamentals ,some people will change the camera and the lens looking for the ultimate sharpness , when most just get the shot in focus and change the settings on the camera .
 
Not obsessed with sharpness, but do like to see detail in subjects like buildings, locomotives and animals/wildlife

Must agree that there is an abundance of over sharpened photos especially birds, some of the so called feather detail looks awful

I do sharpen and only take RAW whilst using jpeg to preview, seems crazy to not make the most of whatever detail you can obtain. Bought a book dedicated to processing and sharpening, quite a complex subject and still not sure I understand every aspect of it

None of my processing is done in camera, would much rather use the far greater power and software on a PC, all part of the fun and see it as an extension of my hobby especially on wet or cold evenings
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
I disagree... a high resolution image viewed 100% on a 30" screen makes it apparent that you don't need sharpness. It's viewing them on a crappy laptop screen that makes people think they need to over sharpen. I view my images when editing, at 100% or more on a 30" screen and I feel no need to add excessive sharpening, if any at all.

It's certainly a digital phenomena. Some people need to realise that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Give a box of tools to someone who doesn't know how to use them and they'll just play with them all.
Click to expand...
I don't agree, your reasoning is solid, but then you're an experienced photographer. I think it's because it's so easy for any digital photographer (even my dear mother) to look at the fine details that has led to the obsession with sharpness.
 
Pookeyhead said:
My point was: You don't really NEED to add sharpening.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree with you, you may not NEED to, but pretty much every digital photo will benefit from being correctly (not over) sharpened.

Nod said:
Yes, over sharpened images look wrong but not as bad as soft ones. Back in the '70s we always aimed for perfect focus at all stages but didn't have a button and slider to adjust it.
Click to expand...

Sharpening doesn't focus an image. the only button for that is the on the says 'AF-ON' on your camera.
 
As already said, sharpening is different from focus.

I too have noticed what can only be described as an obsession with what I term as over-sharpening. It's fine for scientific micro (micro, not macro) work but the reason I dislike over-sharpness is that it so often causes a photograph to lose all sense of reality.

I prefer to replicate what the human eye sees/perceives naturally*. Afterall, the camera is merely a tool to communicate what the photographer sees.

EDIT: *I don't mean scientifically!
 
Last edited:
I think I have said it before but I will say it again. I find the comments on photos saying "nice, sharp image" an insult. It just means that the image is sharp and says nothing for the image or thought of the photographer themselves. If that is all you are going to say, don't bother.
 
I prefer to replicate what the human eye sees naturally
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I don't think there has been a camera produced that can

Do agree to a certain extent though as in distant objects are never going to be full of detail when viewed by the human eye (not sure why some expect their photos to be)
 
Phil V said:
It's the photographic equivalent of the dancer/singer / on strictly/x factor being greeted with 'you look stunning' after a performance.

It means you got something 'right' even if the whole photo/performance is a bit crap.

...
Click to expand...

So true. Great analogy. :)
 
I think that in my case at least its a learning process
I used to over sharpen my shots some of my earlier stuff I can hardly look at!
(Luckily I've always shot in raw so could redo them)
I now know better
Now I just give them a very light sharpen in photo shop
I now know that it's just part of the picture and as said composition light ect are more important:)
 
My favourite is she/he has a nice personality or in other words got a face like a smacked arse
 
RedRobin said:
I prefer to replicate what the human eye sees naturally. Afterall, the camera is merely a tool to communicate what the photographer sees.
Click to expand...

Assume you always shoot at about 50mm f5.6 then? As that's about the closest scientific way to render what the average human eye sees!

For me the camera is like a painters brush. A tool to create what is in my head which may or may not bear a resemblance to reality.
 
Reckon my eyes are crap even with glasses so that makes it even harder to judge whether a photo is well focused or "sharp"

A similar subject is noise, i'm useless at seeing it in photos and not sure its anywhere near as bad as some complain about
 
CharlotteM said:
'It is sharp' is an easy and definitive subject to make. Something is either sharp or it is not.

'The use of repeating motifs is good' or 'the use of space between your subject and the picture plane is good' is far more subjective, far harder to understand and far more open to disagreement. Lots of people don't want to engage in debate about such things, so they keep it simple and obvious.
Click to expand...

I agree with the above

I guess I'm also thinking that whilst 'iamage sharpness' is an observation we make all too often - is it one we used to ?
 
CharlotteM said:
Assume you always shoot at about 50mm f5.6 then? As that's about the closest scientific way to render what the average human eye sees!

For me the camera is like a painters brush. A tool to create what is in my head which may or may not bear a resemblance to reality.
Click to expand...

....Each to their own and beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

You miss my point, Charlotte - I am referring to the general 'sharpness' of an image which the human eye percieves and nothing as scientific as 50mm f5.6. I shall edit my earlier post.

I agree that the camera, or rather post processing, can be used to recreate what's in your brain or imagination but I thought the discussion here was about the general obsession with over-sharpness.

:)
 
Sharpness generally makes for a punchier photo so overall a good thing I think. In my type of photography (extreme macro & focus stacking) sharpness and detail are at a premium as we often examine at 1:1 so I do sharpen but do so judiciously. For example I rarely use USM and prefer Topaz detail as it's much subtler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top