Is it sharp enough yet?

[Just Be]

I looked back through my old photos from my Elan film camera (with kit lens) and noticed that the enlargements no longer meet my new standards for a "sharp" photo. I didn't know any better back then about better lenses. I paid more attention to composition and exposure.

Now that I'm a pixel peeper and can afford better equipment, the bar has definitely been raised.

I think we now expect so much more from the sharpness of a photograph. I wear glasses and see 20/20 with them on. I can look at anything here on my computer desk in good lighting and declare nearly everything I see as having "soft" qualities.

Are we asking that our photos reflect an image sharpness that doesn't usually take place in the real world? :lol:

[lostdoggy]

Remember that you are your own worst critic and if it is not good enough for you then it is not good enough. This is the mountain you must climb.

[Just Be]

Remember that you are your own worst critic and if it is not good enough for you then it is not good enough. This is the mountain you must climb.

I agree.
Knowing what I know now is going to make it tough.
I'm still learning and having alot of fun.

[md_129]

Remember that you are your own worst critic and if it is not good enough for you then it is not good enough. This is the mountain you must climb.


I agree with this one, I am my own worst enemy sometimes :)

[mwillberg]

I can look at anything here on my computer desk in good lighting and declare nearly everything I see as having "soft" qualities.


Did I understand correctly, you are saying that the real world isn't sharp enough for you demands...? Hmm, time for a break from your pixel-peeping activities? :)

Either that, or look into aquiring some USM goggles... Should be technically feasible.

[Just Be]

Did I understand correctly, you are saying that the real world isn't sharp enough for you demands...? Hmm, time for a break from your pixel-peeping activities? :)

Either that, or look into aquiring some USM goggles... Should be technically feasible.

This was just kind of funny thought that I wanted to express. There seems to be more truth than humor in it.

It just seems that we sometimes ask more of image quality or lens capability than our eyes can perceive. This is obvious when we have to crop 100% to compare. I understand why and do it myself. It's just funny to me.

[StealthLude]

Remember that you are your own worst critic and if it is not good enough for you then it is not good enough. This is the mountain you must climb.


Funny... I tell this to my girlfriend everytime I look at my own photos. I just never seem to be content with that ive shot.

I can always find a flaw, fault, problem, whatever. And usually its.. "its not sharp enought"

[StealthLude]

I can pixel peep with the best of em.

[Larry_NB]

This is an interesting thread. I also wonder about this sharpness and digital. I look at some of my older Pentax and Nikon film prints and enlargements and they are not as sharp as most of my digital ones, but I still seek more sharpness. My G6 and 350 xt with Sigma 18-50 2.8 should, I repeat should be more than satisfactory. Oh my.

Which leads to this question. What do any of you think about Raw and JPG. I use Elements 4. Is it really necessary to shoot raw and PP like mad? It seems to have become an obsession of sorts and I would rather put my $$ into gear instead of software and hours at the pc.

[md_129]

Sharpness is like a Drug addiction, the more you get the more you want :lol:

learn when to say when :)

[lostdoggy]

This is an interesting thread. I also wonder about this sharpness and digital. I look at some of my older Pentax and Nikon film prints and enlargements and they are not as sharp as most of my digital ones, but I still seek more sharpness. My G6 and 350 xt with Sigma 18-50 2.8 should, I repeat should be more than satisfactory. Oh my.

Which leads to this question. What do any of you think about Raw and JPG. I use Elements 4. Is it really necessary to shoot raw and PP like mad? It seems to have become an obsession of sorts and I would rather put my $$ into gear instead of software and hours at the pc.

If you've climb the mountain then its time to descend!!!
If not then find the next tallest mountain to climb and there you'll find the answer you're seeking!!!

[neurosis]

Make sure your glasses are "primes" and not bi-focals. Should help with the sharpness....? Also, do they do glasses with IS??;)

[rabidcow]

Are we asking that our photos reflect an image sharpness that doesn't usually take place in the real world?

I've been saying that for a while now. The sharpness bandwagon grows every day and it is simply ridiculous.

I terms of portrait photography I have found that out of camera images are TOO sharp and often require a bit of softening in order to keep clients happy, otherwise they complain about too many lines (and NO I will NOT heal brush those).

Film was soft and we liked it, what is wrong with just having a good image even if we can't count eyelashes when viewed at 200%? The client sees a print, not your computer screen.

[PhotosGuy]

Keep in mind that any pic, close enough, will look "bad". Sharpen for a "Normal" viewing distance?

[Thornfield]

Stop looking at the monitor and print them. Then look at the results, they may surprise you.

Oh I forgot, people don't print these days.