- Messages
- 10,503
- Name
- Raymond
- Edit My Images
- No
The myth of sharpness and the relative (un)importance of it.
It seems to me that on this forum or most forums like these where they have a photography sub section. My observation is that a lot of people often put lens sharpness above everything else.
These days, since getting paid work, I find this strange and counter productive and here is why.
For me, the technical aspect of the photos comes secondary to the art of the photo. Surely, I like a well focus shot, nice and sharp but i do not pixel peep. It is the art, the soul, that sets your photos apart from the next Joe Blogg. These days everyone can take a perfectly good technical photo. It is not difficult at all. You don't even need a light metre anymore these days, you have TTL metering, with digital cameras now you know if you have the exposure correct and if not, take another one seconds later with no cost penalties to the user.
However, that is not what this is about, not exposure, I am talking about sharpness.
To me, people put way too much empathises into how sharp a photo is. Whenever you see someone get into the world of photography, almost always, 99% of the time they would ask this when looking for a camera:-
"It has to take sharp pictures".
Truth of the matter is that all cameras out there will take sharp pictures, sharp enough for 99% of consumers out there not to notice the difference between a Sony one to a Nikon one to a Fuji one. At least in the compact world where everything under £200 is almost much of muchness. Give me a Av and M mode and that's all I care about.
Moving onto DSLR...
Same thing, I see it everyday. Someone buys a entry level DSLR and most people will get the kit lens. It has a 3.5-5.6 variable aperture (which to me is the MOST constrictive part of the kit lens). But it seems people want to move on from it mostly because they think it isn't sharp enough.
I had the original Canon 18-55 Kit Lens, the one without IS, the supposedly worse one than the current one and I never had any complaints about its sharpness. The reason I upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 was because of the aperture. 2.8 is much more useful than 5.6 !
Of course, a photo is no good if every photo it takes it out of focus, or blur as looking through the eyes of a alcoholic after a Sunday session. However, personally, once I know a lens is sharp, (I don't do test charts of any sorts) by taking it out in the real world and shoot with it, I know that it is not front of back focusing. I am happy. What is important, what makes a great photo is not sharpness, it is everything else.
It seems in this digital age we are all pulled into the trap of pixel peeping, zooming in 100% to see if every eye lash can be counted or if every freckle can be seen. I see threads like these all the time, almost always in a thread from people when they are starting out. They question the quality of their lenses. I think a lot of the time, these kind of exercise is almost an hindrance in the development of one's photographic journey. They place sharpness as the top priority when criticising a photo. If a photo is sharp then it is good. If it is not sharp then it is bad. I have never seen this kind of thinking from a professional photographer. The train of thought into critique of a photo is completely different. Not every photo needs to be crystal clear, not every photo needs to be noise free. Jose Villa is one of the world's best photographers and he shoots film. He deliberately introduce some motion blur in his evening shots because it gives them a sense of movement. So the question is why and when does change. Why does a professional think different?
The other thing is that people place FAR TOO MUCH weight into a brand. Canon people will sing Canon's praises, Nikon people will sing Nikon's praises and Leica's people will say they are the best, and everyone will say they are a waste of money lol
The truth of the matter is that they are all much of muchness. When a client sees a photo, in my experience, they have never asked me what lens or body I shot that with. They simply do not care. The care about the results. I have had a client who is a semi-pro photographer and he shoots Nikon and has daily access to Medium formats, he has no problem with me using Canon gear, all he is concerned about is my level of work.
I also find people pay too much attention to these lab tests. Every time a new body comes out, DPreview etc will do a comparison charts, in different ISO shooting still objects and you get to see 100% cropped side by side comparisons. To me, these are a waste of time especially if you are heavily invested into a system already. You are most likely to upgrade to the new body in your own brand or not at all. However, if you are thinking swapping your entire gear to swap over because some test shows a half a stop of difference, this kind of thinking to me is incredibly short sighted not to mention almost always uneconomical. In real life situations any ISO discrepancies will be ruined by correctly/badly exposed a shot. And what happens if the next generations in a few years the pendulum swings the other way? Are you going to swap over again? Also unless you print every single photo at billboard size, you are never going to be able to tell the difference when looking on a 20" TFT monitor, or even printing it in A3 Canvas. Most 3200 ISO shots from a 5Dii looks perfectly clean after processing on the web. The fact that the new Nikon D9999 is half a stop better than Canon's 9999D is meaningless and arguing about it is just sad.
To me, I rarely pay hardly any attention to what Nikon, Sony or any 4/3 or mirror-less system releases. They do not concern me, in any regard, at all. Why would I trade in a perfectly set of lenses for the sake of 1 body upgrade. Granted, if i were starting out then i might think hard about it, but then again, how many people starts out can afford the new D800 or 5Dmkiii as their first body? The customers for those cameras are going to be already heavily invest in either system.
Don't get me wrong, i am rather excited with the release of the 5Diii, it has a most welcome AF system and dual card slots. But i haven't clicked on a single one of these early release on the web of jpeg in high ISO from it. Why? Because it makes no difference, it is not going to be worse than the 5Dii and that is all i need to know. The current ISO performance of DSLR is plenty enough for a working wedding photographer when paired with some fast lenses. F/1.4 with ISO 6400 can capture photos in candle lit rooms. The fact that it can shoot acceptable 256k ISO doesn't concern me. However, I can't deny the fact that a sports photographer may need high ISO when shooting in F/5.6 in a fast 1/200th shutter speed.
So, where does that leave us?
Well, take photos. Think less about gear, they are merely a tool. Think of the story of the photo. Photography is an art, treat it like one.
It seems to me that on this forum or most forums like these where they have a photography sub section. My observation is that a lot of people often put lens sharpness above everything else.
These days, since getting paid work, I find this strange and counter productive and here is why.
For me, the technical aspect of the photos comes secondary to the art of the photo. Surely, I like a well focus shot, nice and sharp but i do not pixel peep. It is the art, the soul, that sets your photos apart from the next Joe Blogg. These days everyone can take a perfectly good technical photo. It is not difficult at all. You don't even need a light metre anymore these days, you have TTL metering, with digital cameras now you know if you have the exposure correct and if not, take another one seconds later with no cost penalties to the user.
However, that is not what this is about, not exposure, I am talking about sharpness.
To me, people put way too much empathises into how sharp a photo is. Whenever you see someone get into the world of photography, almost always, 99% of the time they would ask this when looking for a camera:-
"It has to take sharp pictures".
Truth of the matter is that all cameras out there will take sharp pictures, sharp enough for 99% of consumers out there not to notice the difference between a Sony one to a Nikon one to a Fuji one. At least in the compact world where everything under £200 is almost much of muchness. Give me a Av and M mode and that's all I care about.
Moving onto DSLR...
Same thing, I see it everyday. Someone buys a entry level DSLR and most people will get the kit lens. It has a 3.5-5.6 variable aperture (which to me is the MOST constrictive part of the kit lens). But it seems people want to move on from it mostly because they think it isn't sharp enough.
I had the original Canon 18-55 Kit Lens, the one without IS, the supposedly worse one than the current one and I never had any complaints about its sharpness. The reason I upgraded to the Tamron 17-50 was because of the aperture. 2.8 is much more useful than 5.6 !
Of course, a photo is no good if every photo it takes it out of focus, or blur as looking through the eyes of a alcoholic after a Sunday session. However, personally, once I know a lens is sharp, (I don't do test charts of any sorts) by taking it out in the real world and shoot with it, I know that it is not front of back focusing. I am happy. What is important, what makes a great photo is not sharpness, it is everything else.
It seems in this digital age we are all pulled into the trap of pixel peeping, zooming in 100% to see if every eye lash can be counted or if every freckle can be seen. I see threads like these all the time, almost always in a thread from people when they are starting out. They question the quality of their lenses. I think a lot of the time, these kind of exercise is almost an hindrance in the development of one's photographic journey. They place sharpness as the top priority when criticising a photo. If a photo is sharp then it is good. If it is not sharp then it is bad. I have never seen this kind of thinking from a professional photographer. The train of thought into critique of a photo is completely different. Not every photo needs to be crystal clear, not every photo needs to be noise free. Jose Villa is one of the world's best photographers and he shoots film. He deliberately introduce some motion blur in his evening shots because it gives them a sense of movement. So the question is why and when does change. Why does a professional think different?
The other thing is that people place FAR TOO MUCH weight into a brand. Canon people will sing Canon's praises, Nikon people will sing Nikon's praises and Leica's people will say they are the best, and everyone will say they are a waste of money lol
The truth of the matter is that they are all much of muchness. When a client sees a photo, in my experience, they have never asked me what lens or body I shot that with. They simply do not care. The care about the results. I have had a client who is a semi-pro photographer and he shoots Nikon and has daily access to Medium formats, he has no problem with me using Canon gear, all he is concerned about is my level of work.
I also find people pay too much attention to these lab tests. Every time a new body comes out, DPreview etc will do a comparison charts, in different ISO shooting still objects and you get to see 100% cropped side by side comparisons. To me, these are a waste of time especially if you are heavily invested into a system already. You are most likely to upgrade to the new body in your own brand or not at all. However, if you are thinking swapping your entire gear to swap over because some test shows a half a stop of difference, this kind of thinking to me is incredibly short sighted not to mention almost always uneconomical. In real life situations any ISO discrepancies will be ruined by correctly/badly exposed a shot. And what happens if the next generations in a few years the pendulum swings the other way? Are you going to swap over again? Also unless you print every single photo at billboard size, you are never going to be able to tell the difference when looking on a 20" TFT monitor, or even printing it in A3 Canvas. Most 3200 ISO shots from a 5Dii looks perfectly clean after processing on the web. The fact that the new Nikon D9999 is half a stop better than Canon's 9999D is meaningless and arguing about it is just sad.
To me, I rarely pay hardly any attention to what Nikon, Sony or any 4/3 or mirror-less system releases. They do not concern me, in any regard, at all. Why would I trade in a perfectly set of lenses for the sake of 1 body upgrade. Granted, if i were starting out then i might think hard about it, but then again, how many people starts out can afford the new D800 or 5Dmkiii as their first body? The customers for those cameras are going to be already heavily invest in either system.
Don't get me wrong, i am rather excited with the release of the 5Diii, it has a most welcome AF system and dual card slots. But i haven't clicked on a single one of these early release on the web of jpeg in high ISO from it. Why? Because it makes no difference, it is not going to be worse than the 5Dii and that is all i need to know. The current ISO performance of DSLR is plenty enough for a working wedding photographer when paired with some fast lenses. F/1.4 with ISO 6400 can capture photos in candle lit rooms. The fact that it can shoot acceptable 256k ISO doesn't concern me. However, I can't deny the fact that a sports photographer may need high ISO when shooting in F/5.6 in a fast 1/200th shutter speed.
So, where does that leave us?
Well, take photos. Think less about gear, they are merely a tool. Think of the story of the photo. Photography is an art, treat it like one.
Last edited:
, but then again she is an artist, and im just an engineer.
