where does sharpness come from?

[ps249]

The camera body or the lens ??

[Zerimar]

mostly the lens, usually if the lens is stopped down you get sharper pictures.

[evandavies]

Image quality is determined first with the lens then the body.

The Lens forms an image on the sensor (film plane) then the camera records that image.

[Hermeto]

Both.

[Belmondo]

And don't forget software sharpening.

Truth be told, the lens is probably more important, and as stated before, the camera only records what the lens sees. But that's only part of the story. There's in-camera sharpening, and post-processing.

[eigga]

Its a secret and if you dont know the handshake you are SOL

[ps249]

Well its nice to know that the lens has something to do with sharpness. I hear alot of people complaining about poor sharpness (mostly for the 40D). I almost thought the 40D was a lemon.

[prime80]

The two main components of sharpness IMO are accurate focus and lens optical quality. Accurate focus is WAY more important IMO. You can have the sharpest lens in the world, but if your system doesn't focus accurately it won't matter.

[pknight]

Well its nice to know that the lens has something to do with sharpness. I hear alot of people complaining about poor sharpness (mostly for the 40D). I almost thought the 40D was a lemon.

If you can avoid excessive pixel peeping, most sharpness problems will simply disappear.

[Hermeto]

If you can avoid excessive pixel peeping, most sharpness problems will simply disappear.

LOL, how true! :D

[pcunite]

The lense. If you manually focus you will be happy with most lenses. Auto focus of course is required for most things and that is where loss of sharpness occurs... If you stop down to f8 you will be pleased with just about all lenses.

[scrumpy]

...then there's your shutter speed. Over half the O/F shots shown here are caused by camera shake.

[cricketboy75]

yeah, i reckon a lot of sharpness comes from having a tripod, using mirror lock up and using a remote cable release. it's a pain in the butt to lug around and set up though!

[photomatt8]

Well its nice to know that the lens has something to do with sharpness. I hear alot of people complaining about poor sharpness (mostly for the 40D). I almost thought the 40D was a lemon.

I'm in no way a pro, but I've been shooting for about 5 years now on a semi-pro basis. I just bought a new camera and a new lens about 3 weeks ago. The 40D paired with the sharp Tamron 17-50 2.8. My pictures have never been more sharp straight out of the camera.

[SlowBlink]

If you can avoid excessive pixel peeping, most sharpness problems will simply disappear.

Could you demonstrate this with crops? :)

[r1ch]

Sharpness comes from a number of things, but mostly the lens because any DSLR down to the old 4MP 1d will get you sharp images.

The lens should be sharp, look a resolution, a cheap lens will produce soft images. Image stablization helps soft images because it reduces hand shake. Fast glass allow you to get higher shutterspeeds, you may have IS but if the subject is moving and you have slow shutter speed it will be soft. Correct settings on the camera, if you AF is slow and you have shallow dept of field then it could be soft. Bottom line, get the best lens you can, the body is secondary. If still shot, like said above, lens, then tripod and mirror lockup.

Also contrast between light and dark distinct lines creates sharpness. Good lens helps, knowing how to use your camera does as well.

[shutterfiend]

The camera body or the lens ??

Yes... and Photoshop.

[bacchanal]

For me, sharpness comes from the 135L, the question is, where does the 135L come from? :D

[rdenney]

Sharpness is a state of mind.

I'm always amused when people comment on the sharpness of an image posted here, when the image has often been downsampled by a factor of 5 or 6. The image looks sharp because the subject has clear edges--no more. Virtually any camera used correctly, no matter how cheap the lens, would appear sharp when downsampled that much, if the subject displays clear edges.

For example, is this image sharp?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/pinnacle_in_last_light_lores.jpg

Sharpness is a combination of contrast and acutance. Unsharp masking in Photoshop simulates sharpness by increase edge contrast, but it does nothing to add detail to the image. Compressing the image into JPEG can actually increase apparent sharpness by adding false detail at the pixel level. I have an actual photographic print of Adams's Tenaya Creek, Dogwood and have compared it to the reproduction in Yosemite and the Range of Light. The reproduction appears sharper. This is an artifact of the screening process used to reproduce it in print. But the original has greater clarity and dimensionality, because the edges are more realistic and the tones are more pure.

http://www.anseladams.com/ProductImages/seps/05010124.jpg

When we talk about lenses, we are interested in both their contrast and their acutance. We measure these by looking at the ability of the lens to project real detail of various sizes, or spatial frequencies, onto the sensor. Lenses that maintain a high realism for big details at low spatial frequencies may appear sharper than lenses that have less contrast but greater acutance of small details. My first image above is an example. That lens is actually pretty dreadful when it comes to acutance of fine detail.

If the lens resolves those fine details, we can increase the contrast using post-processing techniques. When we use them on lenses optimized for contrast but not fine detail, the results are not as good. But nothing makes an image sharp like downsampling it (i.e., printing it smaller).

We also have limitations of the sensor. We will never be able to resolve details too small to receive their representative sampling of pixels on the sensor. For the most part, though, sensors these days are as good or better than most lenses, when it comes to pixel density and acutance. The sensor is actually too sharp and we have to fuzz it up a bit to keep it from creating false detail that results from interference patterns. This is what the anti-aliasing filter in the camera does. But most people don't make big enough prints so that the effect of the anti-aliasing filter is important, and that's the root of the advice not to judge too harshly your image sharpness when displaying "actual pixels" on a large computer screen, unless you really intend to print the image at 100 pixels/inch, which is not advisable.

If the camera or the subject moves during the time the shutter is open, the subject will smear itself across some portion of the frame. That accounts for much loss of sharpness. And if the camera is not focused on the subject, it can't render it sharply, no matter what. Those two things probably contribute more to technical unsharp images than all the cheap lenses put together. And even the cheapest lenses usually perform pretty well when used at their best apertures, which is usually in the f/8-f/11 range for small cameras. My first image above was made with a garbage lens, but the camera was on a tripod and the lens was set to f/11 or maybe even f/16.

But in the end, if the photographer's concept of the subject is fuzzy, the picture is likely to appear that way, too, no matter how finely the camera resolves its details.

Rick "who routinely gets sharp-seeming images from admittedly poor lenses" Denney

[tgara]

...then there's your shutter speed. Over half the O/F shots shown here are caused by camera shake.

Scrumpy and Cricketboy are correct here. Most equipment today will give you sharp pictures. The OOF shots frequently arise from user error, and not the equipment.

[scrumpy]

Sharpness is a state of mind.

I'm always amused when people comment on the sharpness of an image posted here, when the image has often been downsampled by a factor of 5 or 6. The image looks sharp because the subject has clear edges--no more. Virtually any camera used correctly, no matter how cheap the lens, would appear sharp when downsampled that much, if the subject displays clear edges.

For example, is this image sharp?

http://www.rickdenney.com/images/pinnacle_in_last_light_lores.jpg

Sharpness is a combination of contrast and acutance. Unsharp masking in Photoshop simulates sharpness by increase edge contrast, but it does nothing to add detail to the image. Compressing the image into JPEG can actually increase apparent sharpness by adding false detail at the pixel level. I have an actual photographic print of Adams's Tenaya Creek, Dogwood and have compared it to the reproduction in Yosemite and the Range of Light. The reproduction appears sharper. This is an artifact of the screening process used to reproduce it in print. But the original has greater clarity and dimensionality, because the edges are more realistic and the tones are more pure.

http://www.anseladams.com/ProductImages/seps/05010124.jpg

When we talk about lenses, we are interested in both their contrast and their acutance. We measure these by looking at the ability of the lens to project real detail of various sizes, or spatial frequencies, onto the sensor. Lenses that maintain a high realism for big details at low spatial frequencies may appear sharper than lenses that have less contrast but greater acutance of small details. My first image above is an example. That lens is actually pretty dreadful when it comes to acutance of fine detail.

If the lens resolves those fine details, we can increase the contrast using post-processing techniques. When we use them on lenses optimized for contrast but not fine detail, the results are not as good. But nothing makes an image sharp like downsampling it (i.e., printing it smaller).

We also have limitations of the sensor. We will never be able to resolve details too small to receive their representative sampling of pixels on the sensor. For the most part, though, sensors these days are as good or better than most lenses, when it comes to pixel density and acutance. The sensor is actually too sharp and we have to fuzz it up a bit to keep it from creating false detail that results from interference patterns. This is what the anti-aliasing filter in the camera does. But most people don't make big enough prints so that the effect of the anti-aliasing filter is important, and that's the root of the advice not to judge too harshly your image sharpness when displaying "actual pixels" on a large computer screen, unless you really intend to print the image at 100 pixels/inch, which is not advisable.

If the camera or the subject moves during the time the shutter is open, the subject will smear itself across some portion of the frame. That accounts for much loss of sharpness. And if the camera is not focused on the subject, it can't render it sharply, no matter what. Those two things probably contribute more to technical unsharp images than all the cheap lenses put together. And even the cheapest lenses usually perform pretty well when used at their best apertures, which is usually in the f/8-f/11 range for small cameras. My first image above was made with a garbage lens, but the camera was on a tripod and the lens was set to f/11 or maybe even f/16.

But in the end, if the photographer's concept of the subject is fuzzy, the picture is likely to appear that way, too, no matter how finely the camera resolves its details.

Rick "who routinely gets sharp-seeming images from admittedly poor lenses" Denney

A lot of good common sense here Rick backed up by great images on your website.
Thanks for sharing.

[gooble]

The lense. If you manually focus you will be happy with most lenses. Auto focus of course is required for most things and that is where loss of sharpness occurs... If you stop down to f8 you will be pleased with just about all lenses.

What do you mean, auto focus is required for most things?

I manually focus almost all my shots, whether it's portraits, nature, animals or landscapes.

I think people place too much stock in AF. Hey, it's great when I need it but I certainly don't rely on it.

[pcunite]

What do you mean, auto focus is required for most things?

I manually focus almost all my shots, whether it's portraits, nature, animals or landscapes.

I think people place too much stock in AF. Hey, it's great when I need it but I certainly don't rely on it.

I manually focus when I can too. I meant that on this forum AF is highly prized :)

[DDWD10]

I have a bad habit of always using ISO 100 when I shoot (former P&S user habit, I guess). This often results in some trajically blurred shots :(

[ebann]

I've heard people say how sharp the images comes out from the old 1D/1Ds (MkI). Why is that?

[arkphotos]

fewer P&S folks with lower skill? (I am one of them :))

[Jon, The Elder]

I think people place too much stock in AF. Hey, it's great when I need it but I certainly don't rely on it.

Without AF, sports like my horse events would be almost impossible for me to maintain.

[oaktree]

Sharpness of the lens, accurate focusing, choice of f/stop and shutter speed, steadiness of camera holder, skill in PP.

Edit: When all of these are good, you get a sharp photo but the composition, lighting, etc can still be crap. :)