Thoughts on Sharpness obsession.

[Tom K.]

I was reading a recent interview with world renowned wedding photographer Jeff Ascough and in answer to one of the questions he spoke about image sharpness. His thoughts were very, very interesting. http://www.jeffascough.com/

Here they are.


I'm afraid one of the problems with digital photography is that people have become so anal about sharpness, to the point of it dominating everything else. Seeing an image at 100% on a 30" monitor is not living in the real world. The amount of wasted hours of rubbish spoken about sharpness across the internet is bizarre. Maybe if people got out from behind their keyboards, and took pictures instead of whining about them, they would understand that sharpness is not just about a lens. Admittedly, the current crop of sensors have immense resolving power, which will show up flaws in lens design especially at wide apertures. However, in the real world of prints and correct viewing distances, I doubt if anyone would argue that today's cameras and lenses are just incredible tools, capable of producing amazing results. Compare what we use now to what Cartier-Bresson had throughout his career. Or Capa, Winogrand, Brassai, Eve Arnold etc. We have never had it so good, and yet all we seem to do is moan about sharpness. Why? I was at a Don McCullin exhibition yesterday with my good friend George Weir. A lot of DM's images were 'soft' compared to what we try and strive for now. Did this softness make any difference to the power of the image? Not at all. Look at Capa's work; camera shake, out of focus images etc. and yet he is one if the most important war photographers of the 20th century. A lot of Cartier-Bresson's work is 'soft' but again who cares?? I don't. It's irrelevent unless you are simply looking at sharpness as a way of adding perceived visual value to your images. If as a wedding photographer you must have critical sharpness, and critical exposure, and critical flash exposure, etc then maybe you are missing the point of photography? Maybe you are missing the whole concept of what makes a picture? In my mind all that stuff simply distracts from finding images. In the real world of prints, an image that looked soft on a screen at 100% will look beautifully crisp and sharp at 10x7, so what is the issue?
What do you think of what he had to say?

[John E]

Sooooooo true. If I see another "Is my lens soft" thread I'm going to throw up.

[oaktree]

Ascough is one of my favorite photographers, so he MUST be right :)

Then there's Ansel's: "There is nothing worst than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept."

[SOK]

I agree with the general sentiment, particularly the opening line;

"I'm afraid one of the problems with digital photography is that people have become so anal about sharpness, to the point of it dominating everything else."

This jumped out at me though;

"It's irrelevent unless you are simply looking at sharpness as a way of adding perceived visual value to your images."

The thing is, if photography is supposed to be an artistic outlet, who is to say that the pursuit of sharpness above all else is a bad thing? He's obviously made a successful living selling prints, where sharpness isn't his main concern, but does that mean we all have to do that?

As for "perceived" visual value...is there any other kind of visual value?!?

It's almost (not quite) like that slightly bizarre thread in this sub-forum where the OP randomly slammed B&W conversions. He seemed very upset that someone would dare sap out all the colour that camera engineers worked so hard to allow us to capture.

Maybe it's just me, but I think most people would enjoy this art form much more if they stopped worrying about what other people are doing and just went and took some pictures!

[Rudeofus]

First of all, thank you, Tom, for bringing up my pet peeve with this forum, especially the lens threads. I have indeed witnessed people buying the 200L F/2.8, bragging for days about its incredible sharpness, then within weeks selling it at 10% loss "because they have no real need for this focal length". Too many threads about creative lenses were literally trashed by discussions of sharpness of these particular lenses.

And I can imagine why DSLR noobs are obsessed about sharpness: it's the first thing which visibly improves when coming from a P&S camera, so they want as much as possible from it. And one more thing: I take many pictures (wife & daughter), and most pictures receive either moderate interest or bored looks in my family. Except for my soft focus images, which cause a huge split in my family: some like them a lot (but they also like some of my other pictures), but some openly hate them, they almost fume and froth their mouth when I show these pictures. While they simply don't care about other lame pictures with poor composition, ugly colors, cropped heads and other goof ups, these blurry pictures really seem to upset them.

So there seems to be something about blur which really upsets some people, and a 24" monitor and 100% view makes even sharp images look blurry.

The thing is, if photography is supposed to be an artistic outlet, who is to say that the pursuit of sharpness above all else is a bad thing? He's obviously made a successful living selling prints, where sharpness isn't his main concern, but does that mean we all have to do that?

The main problem is that most discussions about sharpness are so laden with uninformed gibberish from people with no clue, that I hardly believe many people want to add sharpness for artistic value.

Just look at how lenses are reviewed:

70-200L F/4: really really sharp
70-200L F/4 IS: holy moly, unbelievably sharp!!
85 F/1.8: incredibly sharp
100 F/2: OMG how sharp!!! Even sharper than the 85!! No, it's not! Yes, it is!!!
85L: so unbelievably sharp, mine is even sharp at F/13 !!!!!
135L: razor sharp, you almost cut yourself
200L F/2.8: unbelievably sharp, oh my!!!!
200L F/2: I can't believe how sharp this lens is, it must be the sharpest lens in the world!
300L F/2.8: surely the sharpest lens Canon makes, oh, how sharp!!!!

BTW: The BS comment I wrote about the 85L really appeared in its lens thread! :rolleyes: Someone paid 2000+ $ for a lens to discover it yields acceptably sharp images at F/13 or somehow miraculously avoids diffraction problems. :lol:

stopped worrying about what other people are doing and just went and took some pictures!
People get miffed if you literally can't read the lens threads any more because they are riddled with sharpness BS as compiled above. Even in the lens sample threads pictures with amazing composition are just applauded for their sharpness.

If everybody just went their way and shot images without thinking about others: what's the remaining purpose of a photography forum then?


PS: Yes, there are needs for sharp lenses. Landscape photographers want them. Bird photographers deperately need them. Sharpness has its merit, but not to the extent it's discussed in the lens threads.

[Calicajun]

I do agree with Jeff Ascough thoughts on worrying about needing 100% sharpness in all pictures. I just don't want my wife to read this thread, as I still want to get a couple of "L" lenses.:lol:

[The Moose]

I, too, am frustrated with the amount of people asking if their lens is sharp and things like that but I am also frustrated when people say such things as looking at a computer screen isn't the real world, looking at prints at correct distances is. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED! With digital photography and technology comes digital viewing and it has come in such large numbers that it should be known that for a lot of people, digital viewing has outgrown prints. I love printing my photos but because it's digital and I don't have to print them to see them, I don't have that many of them as prints. Prints, for me, are now something special and a shot has to be worth it for me to print it. A shot that's just a shot that I like will go on my Flickr. In my experience, a photo that isn't sharp is much more noticeable and open to criticism on the internet than as a print. Just like how a post-processed nearly out of focus black and white image with higher contrast and a bit of grain looks just fine on the internet or as a print. I used this to my advantage when I took photos of my nephew because his eyes were slightly out of focus but it was a good photo otherwise.

I'm not totally obsessed with sharpness but I am sick of people complaining about sharpness and telling them to go out and shoot more and print more.

[tzalman]

I, too, am frustrated with the amount of people asking if their lens is sharp and things like that but I am also frustrated when people say such things as looking at a computer screen isn't the real world, looking at prints at correct distances is. THE WORLD HAS CHANGED!
Read the posts above again. Nobody said looking at a screen isn't the real world, they said looking at a screen with the image at 100% zoom is unreal. Do you really think that looking at a small section from the middle of the image is the proper way to view a photo?

[chauncey]

I am anal about sharpness...I'm also anal about exposure. Given sufficient time, I can control those two aspects of photography.
I'm afraid one of the problems with digital photography is that people have become so anal about sharpness
And reading that from someone like this
world renowned wedding photographer Jeff Ascough
who has obviously crossed that threshold between a common snapshot shooter, like me, to that of a financially secure artist, carries little weight in the common world where most of us dwell.

We can take technically better images than the "Old Masters" could dream of, but it was their "vision" that sets them apart from us.

Before you come preaching about being anal on my basics, tell me how to access the right side of my brain which would allow me to have that "creative spark" that you were born with and nurtured through arduous work.

[Scottes]

We hackers have to worry about sharpness and exposure and contrast, because we know that if all of those things AND the composition sucked, well, then our little hobby would be a real let-down. So we control what we can control, until - as chauncey said - we learn to access the right side of our brains. So all you right-brainer artistes can go on moaning about those of us who only have technical skills while we learn to see creatively. But gosh, don't be so condescending about it.

And you can bet that Asgough - "the first ever Canon 'Ambassador' in wedding photography" - doesn't shoot a freaking P&S with a Lens Baby.

[Lojt]

Whats the point of the lens forum if you cant discuss and compare lens sharpness/contrast etc? Why is it not ok to like and enjoy a really sharp photo?

[weezerfan84]

I agree. I like to have my sharpness as well with any of my lenses, but a sharp lens is viewed different by everyone. No one has the same set of eyes. I agree that if more people used their cameras instead of taking pictures of brick walls or focus charts, then everyone would have a much better day.

[rral22]

I think the premise that people obsess about lens sharpness is correct, if obsession means they worry about it beyond what is rational. But I like to have sharpness as one of the tools with which I can work.

Portraits can sometimes suffer if they is "too sharp" and full of distracting skin detail, and lots of people don't like sharp pictures of themselves, but a picture of a bird with feather detail is just as often becomes powerful because of that sharpness. I like to have the choice of sharp or softer, depending on the effect I want.

[nicksan]

While I agree that worrying about sharpness day and night is counter productive, IMO it is a big part of the total package.

Honestly, I don't get the whole pet peeve thing when it comes to this. If you don't like the lens forum, simply don't visit them instead of whining about it here. Really, to me, THAT gets very old.:rolleyes:

I enjoy talking about gear, therefore I am in the lens and camera forums often. That's what it is there for.

And it's also pretty condescending to say things like that about "newbies". Get off your high horse. We've all been there. I always take the time to help folks who are starting out. Just my way of giving back to POTN, a place where I learned so much from. It's pretty normal that the so-called "newbies" would have at times, questions that are misguided.

I understand what is being discussed. At the end of the day, we take photos. It's the result that matters in the end. However I gotta tell you, when you drop $5000 on a lens, I think there's going to be a fair amount of obsessive evaluating...

Just my opinion.

p.s. BTW my 135L and 200L are friggin' sharp on my 30" monitor at 100%.:lol:

[chauncey]

p.s. BTW my 135L and 200L are friggin' sharp on my 30" monitor at 100%

Even at the exreme edges?

[Rudeofus]

Since you quoted and/or referenced a number of my points I'll answer here
While I agree that worrying about sharpness day and night is counter productive, IMO it is a big part of the total package.

Nicksan, I've seen a lot of your pictures and they are so much more than just sharp representations of something. Praising them just for their sharpness is like lauding a Mercedes car for it's polished rim. It's sure nice to have nice rims on a car but that's not the main selling point of such a car.

Honestly, I don't get the whole pet peeve thing when it comes to this. If you don't like the lens forum, simply don't visit them instead of whining about it here. Really, to me, THAT gets very old.:rolleyes:

I encourage people to talk about any technical issues of their lenses they feel like talking about in the lens forum. Unfortunately many such discussions miss the point of a lens so completely and miserably, that IMHO most lenses are misrepresented. So many compare Canon's 85mm lenses just based on sharpness, and completely miss the point of both lenses. If you ask whether the 85L is a good lens, people rave about how sharp it is but provide little else.

And it's also pretty condescending to say things like that about "newbies". Get off your high horse. We've all been there. I always take the time to help folks who are starting out. Just my way of giving back to POTN, a place where I learned so much from. It's pretty normal that the so-called "newbies" would have at times, questions that are misguided.

I have no problem with people asking silly noob questions and probably have contributed my fair share of them (and still do). Like most noobs I was obsessed with lens sharpness when I started reading photography forums. I wasted countless hours comparing MTF charts of all these lenses, only to come to the conclusion the OP stated. I think it would have saved me a lot of wasted time if someone would have pointed this out to me back then, time better spent on acquiring/honing compositional skills or other stuff. For this very reason I don't think it's too helpful to inform newbies that the 200L F/2.8 is sharper than the 70-210 USM (unless you are in the market for 200L F/2.8 @40% below new value).

I understand what is being discussed. At the end of the day, we take photos. It's the result that matters in the end. However I gotta tell you, when you drop $5000 on a lens, I think there's going to be a fair amount of obsessive evaluating...

Of course you expect nothing but the very best for that amount of money. But let me guess: if someone told you that the 35L is sharper than your 200L you'd still decide which focal length you need not which lens is sharper. And your 200L isn't so expensive because it's sharp but because it's F/2 @ 200mm and has a decent IS, its shapness is just some extra thrown into the deal.

[hawkeye60]

The same could be said for all the discussions about "noise", IMHO.

[LeuceDeuce]

As a noob I too worried about sharpness (and noise) in my images. I thought it didn't seem right with gear that cost so much.

The one thing that completely liberated me (from pixel peeping), and I've never seen an image the same way again, is printing. It's absolutely incredible how sharp, and noise free, an image in print is compared to the 100% blow-up on a monitor.

[cdifoto]

All of my lenses are sharp enough. I don't obsess over that. However, I won't sell a soft (as in misfocused) shot unless it marks a critical moment...and it can't be THAT misfocused for me to sell it.

[nicksan]

Since you quoted and/or referenced a number of my points I'll answer here

Nicksan, I've seen a lot of your pictures and they are so much more than just sharp representations of something. Praising them just for their sharpness is like lauding a Mercedes car for it's polished rim. It's sure nice to have nice rims on a car but that's not the main selling point of such a car.

I appreciate that and point well taken. When I take the time to check out other people's photos, sharpness is the last thing on my mind. Now if I see softness/motion blur and other "imperfections", it's up to me to evaluate whether it works with or against the particular piece. Sometimes sharpness really isn't a factor...


I encourage people to talk about any technical issues of their lenses they feel like talking about in the lens forum. Unfortunately many such discussions miss the point of a lens so completely and miserably, that IMHO most lenses are misrepresented. So many compare Canon's 85mm lenses just based on sharpness, and completely miss the point of both lenses. If you ask whether the 85L is a good lens, people rave about how sharp it is but provide little else.

I know what you mean. But you can't blame some for diving in sharpness first. When I read 85L, sharpness isn't the first thing that comes to mind. Color/Contrast/Bokeh would be some of the things that I imagine...well I owned this lens in the past, so it's not imagined...:D


I have no problem with people asking silly noob questions and probably have contributed my fair share of them (and still do). Like most noobs I was obsessed with lens sharpness when I started reading photography forums. I wasted countless hours comparing MTF charts of all these lenses, only to come to the conclusion the OP stated. I think it would have saved me a lot of wasted time if someone would have pointed this out to me back then, time better spent on acquiring/honing compositional skills or other stuff. For this very reason I don't think it's too helpful to inform newbies that the 200L F/2.8 is sharper than the 70-210 USM (unless you are in the market for 200L F/2.8 @40% below new value).

That's one thing I never did...check MTF charts. To me they are just a bunch of data on graphs and really doesn't tell you anything about the lens other than sharpness.


Of course you expect nothing but the very best for that amount of money. But let me guess: if someone told you that the 35L is sharper than your 200L you'd still decide which focal length you need not which lens is sharper. And your 200L isn't so expensive because it's sharp but because it's F/2 @ 200mm and has a decent IS, its shapness is just some extra thrown into the deal.

Ironically, it's the 200L f2 IS that convinced me not to worry about sharpness. Oh, I mean, I expect a certain amount of sharpness in this caliber lens and it is sharp. But the other qualities of this lens far surpass its sharpness and I am more impressed with those attributes more so than I am with the sharpness. I am a recovering pixel peeper myself. I can thank the 50L for that. I found myself doing waaaaaay too much pixel peeping with that lens, something I never did before I bought that lens. I am cured...and it took me a $5000 piece of glass to do it!:lol::o

[nicksan]

The same could be said for all the discussions about "noise", IMHO.

The same could be said, as in noise is an overrated topic?

Like how my 5DMKII is 2 stops better in noise handling than the 5D Classic I used to own?

I don't know...maybe I am weird. I find that rather important and nothing like this sharpness debate.

[oaktree]

While I agree that worrying about sharpness day and night is counter productive, IMO it is a big part of the total package.

Honestly, I don't get the whole pet peeve thing when it comes to this. If you don't like the lens forum, simply don't visit them instead of whining about it here. Really, to me, THAT gets very old.:rolleyes:

I enjoy talking about gear, therefore I am in the lens and camera forums often. That's what it is there for.

And it's also pretty condescending to say things like that about "newbies". Get off your high horse. We've all been there. I always take the time to help folks who are starting out. Just my way of giving back to POTN, a place where I learned so much from. It's pretty normal that the so-called "newbies" would have at times, questions that are misguided.

I understand what is being discussed. At the end of the day, we take photos. It's the result that matters in the end. However I gotta tell you, when you drop $5000 on a lens, I think there's going to be a fair amount of obsessive evaluating...

Just my opinion.

p.s. BTW my 135L and 200L are friggin' sharp on my 30" monitor at 100%.:lol:

Yup, we have ALL been there, that's why I like to highlight the mistakes I've made.

There is a Sufi saying, "The truth never changed anyone". I take this to mean that just telling someone the truth, e.g., sharpness is overrated :), many times does not change the person. The only way the person will change is if he/she "discovers" the truth for themselves through their experience. Buy the sharpest lens you can afford>>now, how are your photos? Sharper? Focus better? Color better? Composition better? Lighting better? More emotional impact? How about sharpness?

Learning never stops. Life is soooo good.

[RDKirk]

THE WORLD HAS CHANGED! With digital photography and technology comes digital viewing and it has come in such large numbers that it should be known that for a lot of people, digital viewing has outgrown prints.

The world hasn't changed much, no more than moving from newspaper images moving from hand-engraved plates copied from Matthew Brady's photographs to photo-processed halftone copies of modern press photographs. We're still using human eyeballs to view a final image display--the fact that it's an LCD rather than a piece of paper does not change the requirements of the basic characteristics of the image.

One problem that has always been with us is obsession with a single characteristic of the image--or even the tools themselves.

Clearly, when people start talking about "per pixel sharpness," they are the best analogy of being unable to see the forest for the trees...or leaves. They don't understand that if one image is made up of 20 million pixels and another image is made up of 5 million pixels, even if "per pixel sharpness" is the same, the image made of more pixels will still result in a sharper final display image.

Sharpness of the final display image could be crucial--take a look at the early micrographs by Ernst Haas on Kodachrome, for instance--their sharpness is everything. For landscapes as well, the resolution requirement is practically infinite because viewers expect to see more detail unfold the more the image is enlarged or the closer they get to it. And with landscapes, forget about "proper viewing distance." People will get as close to a landscape photograph as physically possible. I once saw a guy whip out a loupe to exam a landscape at a gallery.

OTOH, for my portraits, my need for sharpness has a very definite cap: They need only resolve the facial hair, that sharp and no sharper.

I see people obsess over digital color balance to an unbelieveable level--especially absurd now that color balance is so absurdly easy to adjust. Back in the film days, you largely had to get it perfect in the camera, especially with transparencies. If you shot a daylight scene with tungsten film, you were just shucks out of luck. Today, basic color balance is something I give zero consideration to when snapping the shutter, beyond making sure all my light sources are similar.

But I figure the major difference is that so much of digital photography is quantifiable by numbers that many people believe "If I just get all the numbers right, my pictures will be good."

[HappySnapper90]

I've been harping on this same sharpness obsession for months now. Selective sharpening and making a photo look sharper than it would appear to your eyes as the scene, object, or person would look in the real world.

In one of Ansel Adams' books, he has an example of a portrait he took that was done at 1/4 second shutter speed. Of course it looks a little soft printed at 6"x5" or so, but it still is a very good portrait.

[jacobsen1]

is sharpness everything? Hell no.
But should it be considered when spending $ on a lens? Yes.

But so should the colors, the AF speed/accuracy, distortions, contrast, CA etc. Sharpness isn't the only thing, but you certainly won't see me using a lens that's consistently soft.

[nphsbuckeye]

Sharpness doesn't make a picture good.

[bjyoder]

The same could be said, as in noise is an overrated topic?

Like how my 5DMKII is 2 stops better in noise handling than the 5D Classic I used to own?

I don't know...maybe I am weird. I find that rather important and nothing like this sharpness debate.

Yea, but far too many people hang their hat on buying/not buying a camera because of the noise. I also hear people talk about never shooting over xxx ISO, and I can't believe how crazy that is, but that's for a whole other thread! ;)

As far as sharpness, I think I'm going to beat the horse a bit more. We rightly have an expectation that the lenses we pay so much for are going to be sharp. The problem is, when we buy $100 lenses (50 f/1.8 anyone?) and expect too much out of them that this sharpness craze becomes a problem.

There is something to be said for buying the good stuff. As long as you buy good lens, and can take a few test shots to see if it is functioning properly, go shoot! Even though digital presentation is the new way of doing things (although I think we should ALL print more than we do), how many times is that print shown in digital form at 100%? Other than the "Is my lens sharp, 100% crop inside" threads, probably never.

I think worrying too much about sharpness has kept people from truly enjoying some great lenses.

[hawkeye60]

The same could be said, as in noise is an overrated topic?

Like how my 5DMKII is 2 stops better in noise handling than the 5D Classic I used to own?

I don't know...maybe I am weird. I find that rather important and nothing like this sharpness debate.

I find it to be an overrated topic in the same context as the writer speaks of sharpness. The strength of the image itself is far more important than noise or sharpness.

[Mike-DT6]

I agree with most of the writer's sentiments, although there is something to be said about striving for a sharp image, simply because that is what modern equipment enables a photographer to achieve more easily.

Some of the examples given whereby highly regarded photographers of the past have produced blurred or soft images don't establish a suitable benchmark, due to the equipment (and often circumstances) of those times not being comparable with what is available today.

Image sharpness is one important factor contributing to what constitutes a technically flawless photograph. With regard to modern photographic equipment, softness or blur - if not adopted for artistic reasons - is quite simply a flaw and demonstrates that the equipment wasn't utilized to its utmost.

We all have technology available to us today that can allow us to detect sharpness (or otherwise) very easily, so it's hardly surprising that people make use of that capability.

Mike

:-)

[ingraman]

Sharpness wasn't even a criteria for my photos before I came on this forum. In fact, I didn't even add sharpness in post. This website single-handedly ruined that, though like others I'm slowly trying to wean myself off pixel-peeping.

[Tom K.]

I'm glad I started this thread. This discussion has been illuminating and truly excellent. The thoughts expressed here are appreciated.

[tkbslc]

I think the problem is that many people obsess over uber-sharpness at 100% when nobody else ever sees their pictures at 100%. For me, I like sharp pictures. But sharp for me means that it is sharp enough that the softness does not distract from what the rest of the image is trying to convey when viewed at my intended output sizes. And I think a LOT of lenses, even basic ones, would meet that goal. Usually focus and proper aperture is more important than the lens used.

[jacobsen1]

this:
I think worrying too much about sharpness has kept people from truly enjoying some great lenses.

I also think the GAS can do that as well... There are some people here (not sure what % but it's higher than it should be) that are borderline collectors... They'll go buy the best of the best (a 1 series or two, all 2.8 zooms and the trinity of primes) just because it's what most people lust for and these people have the money to do it... But then what? Do you see them posting any amazing shots? Do they have a website? Or do they just list all their gear in their sig like it's a badge of honor? Yes I have an equipments list in my sig, but that's ONLY because I got asked far too often what I shoot with (even with exifs intact)...

no offense to those of you with them, but I despise gear lists. To me that means you're all about showing off what you own, NOT your images. Basically, whatever is in your sig is what you're trying to draw attention to IMHO, and to have a gear list there says a lot about a person.

[DStanic]

People don't look at images on 4x6 or small prints much these days, they DO look at them on 24" screens. Maybe not at 100%, but often big enough to see if it is soft or sharp. Times have changed, sharpness is more important then before.

I agree that some people obsess about sharpness, but there is a difference between a sharp lens (such as a good prime lens) or a soft and miss-focusing third party zoom lens that needs calibration. One will clearly look better then the other. Aside from my 70-200 and 85mm (very sharp) the rest of my lenses are "medium" sharpness, but they are fuctioning 100% and I am very happy with them.

[Rudeofus]

Another issue is that many people say sharpness when they mean something else. To come back at the 85mm comparison: Tests have been made showing that the 85 F/1.8 is just as sharp as the 85l at equal apertures, yet people rave about the "sharpness" of the 85l. Reason is they don't mean sharpness, but pop of a photo due to its narrow dof or their new ability to zoom in on small or distant subjects (macro or tele lenses).

So the disproportionate obsession with sharpness observed by many here may be due to the fact that the attribute sharpness is used incorrectly to describe other merits of a photo (good pp, tight framing, narrow dof with accurate af and large blurred back ground sections, sufficiently long focal length, ...).

[sjones]

I think the problem is that many people obsess over uber-sharpness at 100% when nobody else ever sees their pictures at 100%. For me, I like sharp pictures. But sharp for me means that it is sharp enough that the softness does not distract from what the rest of the image is trying to convey when viewed at my intended output sizes. And I think a LOT of lenses, even basic ones, would meet that goal. Usually focus and proper aperture is more important than the lens used.

Agree.

People don't look at images on 4x6 or small prints much these days, they DO look at them on 24" screens. Maybe not at 100%, but often big enough to see if it is soft or sharp

At this stage, most people do not look at photos on a 24" screen, and if they do, nothing exists to say that the photo is of equal dimension. Moreover, a print is of much higher quality, particularly in terms of sharpness and tonality, than any computer monitor, so if one should be so concerned about sharpness, then they should print.

Times have changed, sharpness is more important then before.

That's the point, that perhaps its importance is exaggerated in the overall scheme of photography. After all, I live in this time, but some of my favorite photos, by any standard, include those taken by the photographers mentioned in Ascough's quote.

[tkbslc]

People don't look at images on 4x6 or small prints much these days, they DO look at them on 24" screens. Maybe not at 100%, but often big enough to see if it is soft or sharp. Times have changed, sharpness is more important then before.
.

That was kind of the point I was trying to make. YOU are looking at your shots at full size on a 24" screen, but if you share your images, it is likely not at that size. Photographers generally share/present their photos by resizing to 1000px wide and posting on the web, or printing them. So to worry about how it looks at greater than 50% magnification on your monitor is probably not productive.

I also don't think anyone is arguing that a SOFT image is desirable or even acceptable in many situations. There is a difference between a soft image, and a sharp enough image that might look a tad softer at high magnification compared to this other photo taken with a more expensive lens.

[bjyoder]

People don't look at images on 4x6 or small prints much these days, they DO look at them on 24" screens. Maybe not at 100%, but often big enough to see if it is soft or sharp. Times have changed, sharpness is more important then before.

A good 4x6 print has a resolution of 300dpi. Computer monitors, not so much. You'll get much more detail out of a good print than you will a computer monitor.

[tkbslc]

Something I was just thinking about is that it is silly that I always instantly try to look at the EXIF for an awesome picture trying to figure out what gear was used. Like just having the same lens would duplicate the lighting and composition that is the majority of what makes up the photo.

[tonylong]

I have a mixed response to this discussion, or maybe more accurately I should say I have a "weighted" response.

For the photography I shoot, which varies from scenic/landscape, wildlife/birding, intricate flowers, sports, people close up and not-so-close, I find image sharpness to be a critical component of how I judge and use my photos.

So, we read the quoted article in the OP, and ask "Is it productive to be anal and obsessive about sharpness?", and the obvious answer is "no". But, isn't this a loaded question? So often when you add the comments supporting this position together, it can give the impression that it is counterproductive to "care" about sharpness, and to me that's silly.

I wonder about the photog in the article. Is he really saying that in reality he doesn't care about the technical sharpness of his images, or is the truth that in fact he has spent the time to develop techniques and skills to maximize sharpness under whatever conditions he is in to where he no longer needs to pend much energy focusing on sharpness as a "goal" -- he now achieves acceptable sharpness as part of his learned skill set?

I don't want to second-guess this guy, but unnless his photographic experience is confined to "soft portraits", unless he's never used a tripod with a remote release, unless he's never carefully shot hand-held in a way to minimoze camera shake and taken multiple shots to ensure the "best" in sharpness, I suspect that he actually has paid his dues and learned the technique and skills to get an image that is, within the requirements of the shoot he is doing, is acceptably sharp.

A lot of people come onto the forum with new gear and ask about "sharpness" because largely they are unfamiliar with the techniques and skills that help to get a good, sharp image. Do you really want to just send them away with derision? Do you really want to tell them that they shouldn't care about image sharpness?

To me, sharpness is not the "be all" of image quality, but it is, like I said above, an important and at times a critical component in the quality of an image. And, believe me, for many of my shoots I check everything out at 100% -- not all require that, but many -- so derisive talk about "pixel peeping" and "obsessing about 100%" tends to get a blanket agreement from me.

I don't have a problem with talking about the sharpness characteristics of a lens, although I would think it was silly if that was all someone seemed capable of. But honestly I don't see much of that. I'm an 85L owner and so subscribe to that thread, and yes, people will make a comment such as "it is very sharp wide open" and, guess what? For that particular grade of lens, you bet your a** that's an important quality. I can take that lens and shoot it for the wide open magic and have the small part of the imgage in the narrow depth of field come out acceptably sharp, as opposed to, say, (not to put down this lens but to illustrate a distinction) the 50mm f/1.8, where I found that I would not want to shoot wide open but more like at f/2.8 if I wanted accaptable sharpness.

So, come on, folks, ask yourself the question: do I care if my images are sharp or not? Which would I prefer: a portrait in which hair is clearly defined on the individual pixel level, even viewed at 100% (all which can be softened in post) or one where the details get blurred, the hair runs together, and you have to view it as a 4x6 before it starts to get acceptable? Those that say you have "gotten over the sharpness obsession' -- did you learn anything along the way, techniques and skills that helped you to get good, sharp images, and now you can move on from "obsession" (or was it a learning curve?)? And now, do you have the skill to, say, take a hand-held close-up of a flower in bloom that will reveal the tiny details within that flower, or would you be satisfied with a shot that passes by that detail, presenting all as, well, a lump of undefined whatever? Do the hairs on the back of a bee, or a deer, or a bird count, or is simple bluriness enough convey what you consider to be a "great capture"?

I'm just sayin', be honest and open in a discussion like this. If you seriously don't give a whit about sharpness and never bother to ensure that you use good skills, or a tripod or whatever to attain sharpness, well, fine, go ahead and speak up. But don't be dismayed if you ever find a picture of yours that you say "wow that is good", and look to print it at a size suitable for framing, and, when you get the print back, realize with dismay that detail that you expected "just because" is lost when you view it at a larger size.

So, sure, it's counter-productive to be anal and obsessive about sharpness! So, what's your point:)?

[tonylong]

Something I was just thinking about is that it is silly that I always instantly try to look at the EXIF for an awesome picture trying to figure out what gear was used. Like just having the same lens would duplicate the lighting and composition that is the majority of what makes up the photo.

When I check out Exif I'm much more inclined to be looking at aperture and focal length to get the specifics of how a particular focal effect (depth of field stuff) and angle/field of view/perspective results were attained. Sometimes, though, an image has a "trademark" look that could typically be attained by a few lenses, such as the "look" procuced by the 85L wide open or the 50L wide open. There's nothing wrong about checking out whether your "guess" was correct. There's nothing wrong with "wishing" you had a particular lens with certain special qualities, but "obsessing" can clearly get you into deep trouble:)!

[tkbslc]

Good points, tony, but you seem to be going back to the black/white argument. There are varying levels of sharpness. I don't think the argument is in favor of soft images, or soft vs sharp. I think the argument is whether obsessing about that last 2% of sharpness at great expense and worry is productive.

Like this argument you made:
So, come on, folks, ask yourself the question: do I care if my images are sharp or not? Which would I prefer: a portrait in which hair is clearly defined on the individual pixel level, even viewed at 100% (all which can be softened in post) or one where the details get blurred, the hair runs together, and you have to view it as a 4x6 before it starts to get acceptable?

Well how about if we compare a portrait that has clearly defined hair at 75% magnificaiton, but not at 100%? Is getting the hair to be defined at 100% productive and useful?

[LeuceDeuce]

Is he really saying that in reality he doesn't care about the technical sharpness of his images, or is the truth that in fact he has spent the time to develop techniques and skills to maximize sharpness under whatever conditions he is in to where he no longer needs to pend much energy focusing on sharpness as a "goal" -- he now achieves acceptable sharpness as part of his learned skill set?


Good thoughts Tony. I think this is exactly where I'm at now, and probably why sharpness isn't the first thing I check when I open my images. I know that the vast majority of the time they're going to be acceptably sharp.

[photoguy6405]

I'm kind of mixed on the whole sharpness thing. On the one hand, if your equipment can do it, you should strive to do your best... without being so anal that you lose all enjoyment, of course. Because it's not good in an overall general sense to allow yourself to get sloppy habits, more so than the actual sharpness itself.

On the other hand, place like stock agencies aren't helping when they demand absolute sharpness when, as has been mentioned already, no one will ever notice when it's printed anyway.

[halitime]

I have a 70-200 f4L that is razor sharp and some fd lenses with a converter that are soft but the images from my free lenses when taken in the proper concept are awesome.A painter has more than one brush and the Mona Lisa
was never sharp and is printed on wood.

[tonylong]

Good points, tony, but you seem to be going back to the black/white argument. There are varying levels of sharpness. I don't think the argument is in favor of soft images, or soft vs sharp. I think the argument is whether obsessing about that last 2% of sharpness at great expense and worry is productive.

Like this argument you made:


Well how about if we compare a portrait that has clearly defined hair at 75% magnificaiton, but not at 100%? Is getting the hair to be defined at 100% productive and useful?

Doesn't it depend on what you are shooting? Yes, actual obsession is counter-productive, but most people who have been really working with such things learn by experience what is acceptable for them and what they are shooting, wouldn't you say?

Whe I advise people (typically new to DSLR shooting or at least to a piece of gear) about this stuff, I recommend that they set a "sharpness benchmark" of setting up a tripod, cable release (or timer) and mirror lockup and shoot through a series of apertures to "characterize a lens" and to determine where the maximum sharpness can be obtained. That's your "sweet spot" and all of your shooting with this lens can be measured against that benchmark. It is up to you and what you are aiming for in a shoot to determine how much "in the grey" you want to go.

Do I deal with "shades of grey" in my shooting? Hell yes -- I do much of my shooting either hand-held or with a monopod, often with long lenses, often in motion, and when I review my shots I have to make judgement calls. But for my shooting I often start winnowing down at say 50%, but then I can only make the close calls for critical use when viewed at 100%, such as a little bird that needs to be cropped close or a richly detailed landscape that I want to print large.. Perfection? Nah. But I'd be fooling myself if I got the idea that sharpness didn't count. And, there is a learning curve here -- what was OK say, two or three years ago, not-so-much today.

One thing that is easily lost in a discussion like this is the qualifying statement that is often unspoken: "This is my practice/opinion for the type of photography I typically do." This gets implied in some of the statements here, but then often ignored: trying to make blanket statements based on just what you personally do in a narrow field of practice that you try to apply to everyone can make you look silly or arrogant. That applies to me as well as anyone -- we all can benefit from good perspective from others' experience!

Anecdotally, I've found that even tripod-mounted shots are not exempt. Last year, at a POTN shoot, I was shooting a scene involving a long range of waterfalls going off into the distance together with a foreground with large rocks and other detail that called for best techniques (mirror lockup, cable release), a CPL (seconding as a 2-stop ND filter) and I took a set of pics at f/22 to ensure that the close foreground as well as the background were well within the depth of field. Shooting with a 5D, this was pushing it as far as diffraction goes, but with the wide angle I was shooting with and the amount of scene I needed "acceptably sharp" I knew that I could accomplish the DOF with f/22 and deal with the diffraction loss. Tradeoffs.

At home I picked my favorite shot exposure-wise and was quite happy. I checked out the close rocks and they rocked with good detail. I checked out the distant waterfalls which when the imaged was compressed for Web/fit screen size were, well, distant and indistinct, but when enlarged showed great detail (all this viewing at 100%). Everything about this shot cried out "large print!", so I did a normal precautionary proof print -- I cropped a portion of the image that could print at 8x10 and represent a larger print of the whole thing. It was then and only then that, to my disappointment, I saw something that didnt clearly show at a "view for Web" size, and that I missed when I was scanning key parts at 100% for acceptable sharpness/DOF: there was a clump of tall grass, maybe less than thumb-size on my 8x10 crop, that was being blown by an errant breezee. It was funny, 'cause the rest of the picture was right on, but that small section stood out like someone has smeared over the wet ink with their thumb, and right there the image was no longer suitable for a gallery-size print.

Oh well.

[chauncey]

Tony, I enjoyed reading your experience, 'tis a relief to know that all of us screw up from time to time. ;)

[tonylong]

Tony, I enjoyed reading your experience, 'tis a relief to know that all of us screw up from time to time. ;)

Heh! Well, I'm glad I caught it when I did -- just imagine if I hadn't and it was the figurepiece for my Big Gallery Opening and I was standing there with some observers and someone stopped and said "what is that terrible smudge?!"...

[John E]

In my experience, a photo that isn't sharp is much more noticeable and open to criticism on the internet than as a print.

I would think it's the opposite - a print would show softness more readily than a monitor (the internet) as a print is usually 300 dpi where as a monitor is 72 dpi. Am I wrong?

[RDKirk]

So, we read the quoted article in the OP, and ask "Is it productive to be anal and obsessive about sharpness?", and the obvious answer is "no". But, isn't this a loaded question? So often when you add the comments supporting this position together, it can give the impression that it is counterproductive to "care" about sharpness, and to me that's silly.

I agree with your discourse. I started photographing 40 years ago and was in an environment where I had plenty of actual prints--galleries and well-experienced friends and teachers--to see "sharp" prints. I could examine actual prints to see what the f64-group of folk were getting from their 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, what the portrait photographers were getting from their medium format cameras, and what PJs were getting from their 35mm cameras.

This was all obviously instructive to me for my own work--knowing what the community considered "sharp" from each format. To that extent, it was easier for me to learn and, as you've mentioned, integrate into my set of evaluative skills to see immediately whether an image is acceptably sharp, given the equipment and the subject.

"Given the equipment and the subject" is important. The 5D2 equipment I currently use is excellent for portraits--I retired my Mamiya RZ67 cameras for good when I saw the output from the 5D2, but I would never argue with a landscape photographer that he should do the same. Even the 5D2 does not quite capture the detail of the Mamiya, and I recognize that my landscape friend wants to resolve that distant blade of grass if it's at all possible.

[asty80]

I was reading a recent interview with world renowned wedding photographer Jeff Ascough and in answer to one of the questions he spoke about image sharpness. His thoughts were very, very interesting. http://www.jeffascough.com/

Here they are.


What do you think of what he had to say?

Hahahahahahaha ... ROFL reading this...

Obv there is no comparison between the masters and me..

They dont have to worry about sharpness since they have an audience and following and are popular...

Ppl dont buy my images even if they are sharp...If I start producing fuzzy images, even my wife'll leave me :D

[Muuraija]

Ppl dont buy my images even if they are sharp...If I start producing fuzzy images, even my wife'll leave me :D

And I thought my friends were just being silly!

A lot of good discussion that can help everyone, regardless of our skill level.

[nicksan]

I find it to be an overrated topic in the same context as the writer speaks of sharpness. The strength of the image itself is far more important than noise or sharpness.

Yes, yes, yes....it's about the image in the end. I think we all get that.

All this is relative. If it's overrated to YOU, then that's fine. It isn't to me. Neither is sharpness. These aspects aren't the only things that make the image. Of course not. Again, we all get that...

ISO6400 on a 5D2 = ISO1600 on a 5DC.

If you can't see the benefit of that...then I don't really know what to say. 2 stops. That's 2 stop. That changes the ballgame...

[narlus]

Sharpness wasn't even a criteria for my photos before I came on this forum. In fact, I didn't even add sharpness in post. This website single-handedly ruined that, though like others I'm slowly trying to wean myself off pixel-peeping.

i don't bother sharpening my photos...don't worry about what this site says...it's up to you to dictate how your photos look...

[tonylong]

i don't bother sharpening my photos...don't worry about what this site says...it's up to you to dictate how your photos look...

There's nothing wrong with that if that's your style -- in fact, Canon actually sells a lens that is designed to take soft pictures!

Be aware, though, that our digital cameras come in with a built-in filter that actually softens the fine details of an image. Sharpening in the digital realm isn't making up for our own shortcomings, but is restoring an image to a proper redering of detail. What you do beyond that is up to your creative impulse and the output you desire, but don't think of basic digital sharpening as somehow "lesser". But, like I said, yor style is your preference, and more power to ya!

[chauncey]

Curiousity got the better of me narlus after visiting your site...Do you shoot RAW or jpeg"

[Mike-DT6]

-- in fact, Canon actually sells a lens that is designed to take soft pictures!


Yes, and they also sell lenses that aren't designed to take soft pictures, but do! :lol:

[narlus]

Curiousity got the better of me narlus after visiting your site...Do you shoot RAW or jpeg"

raw.

most of my work is for web, and after downsizing from full-res, i find that the images are sharp enough. i also employ some contrast and high pass filter tweaks on some shots.

i used to run the manyk SRS sharpening action but became convinced that i don't really need it (and also i like uploading full-res jpgs to zenfolio as an additional backup source).

[tonylong]

Yes, and they also sell lenses that aren't designed to take soft pictures, but do! :lol:

Heh! Yeah, but we won't name any particulars:)!

Seriously, I wonder how many of the sharpness nay-sayers would encourage a newbie to take shots with a certain 50 f/1.8 lens wide open, and then discourage them from asking "is my lens soft?"...

[sjones]

Heh! Yeah, but we won't name any particulars:)!

Seriously, I wonder how many of the sharpness nay-sayers would encourage a newbie to take shots with a certain 50 f/1.8 lens wide open, and then discourage them from asking "is my lens soft?"...

I am just wondering who is a "sharpness nay-sayer" on this site.

[condyk]

The main problem is that most discussions about sharpness are so laden with uninformed gibberish from people with no clue, that I hardly believe many people want to add sharpness for artistic value.

Just look at how lenses are reviewed:

70-200L F/4: really really sharp
70-200L F/4 IS: holy moly, unbelievably sharp!!
85 F/1.8: incredibly sharp
100 F/2: OMG how sharp!!! Even sharper than the 85!! No, it's not! Yes, it is!!!
85L: so unbelievably sharp, mine is even sharp at F/13 !!!!!
135L: razor sharp, you almost cut yourself
200L F/2.8: unbelievably sharp, oh my!!!!
200L F/2: I can't believe how sharp this lens is, it must be the sharpest lens in the world!
300L F/2.8: surely the sharpest lens Canon makes, oh, how sharp!!!!


Yeah, load of BS innit. My lenses resolve sharper than my eyes so WTF are people so bothered about :rolleyes:

[sjones]

Yeah, load of BS innit. My lenses resolve sharper than my eyes so WTF are people so bothered about :rolleyes:

Excellent!

[DAMphyne]

Sharpness doesn't make a picture good.

Agreed.
Un-Sharpness can ruin a good picture

[Rudeofus]

Be aware, though, that our digital cameras come in with a built-in filter that actually softens the fine details of an image. Sharpening in the digital realm isn't making up for our own shortcomings, but is restoring an image to a proper redering of detail.
That's a frequently stated assumption which is incorrect. Your sensor can not record spatial frequencies beyond the Nyquist frequency and the aa filter blurs the image in order to ensure that these spatial frequencies don't reach the sensor. Since people like to pixel peep at 200%, folks complain about blurry transitions from white to black in their images (which are essentially all the sensor can do in the general case, believe it or not).

The sharpening algorithms people apply to reduce this perceived blurriness make heuristic assumptions about the subject matter to introduce sharp transitions wherever the algorithm thinks there might have been one. The resulting images look sharper at high magnification but often carry nasty visible artefacts (where the algorithm guessed wrong and/or compensated too much). It's a tradeoff, not a restoration of detail, in fact, sharpening often covers up details behind artefacts.