Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Aug 2011 (Friday) 10:19
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Too sharp

 
pyrojim
Goldmember
1,882 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jan 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 05, 2011 11:50 as a reply to  @ post 12882515 |  #16

im going to say it,


PICS OR BAN!!!


PhaseOne H25
Camera agnostic

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 12:16 |  #17

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12882450 (external link)
Again, it depends on the answers to the 3 questions I posted. If you have the time, great, soften what you want. If the recipients don't care if there is a ton of detail, then shoot as sharp as you can go, etc.

There are alot of things you can do during post to create the results you want, however many seem to not want to go down that road.

Much like the discussions of noise, and sensor size, etc completely depends on what you shoot, whom you are shooting it for, and how much post processing you are willing to do. I am repeating this since my conclusion to my post above was conveniently not quoted. ;)

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12882450 (external link)
It completely depends on what you are shooting, for whom you are shooting, and the amount of time you want to take during post processing.

There. I disagree with that, too.

Once again, I would ask, how does one go about shooting a portrait where the eyelashes are tack sharp, but the skin on the face is smooth and wrinkle/line-free, without doing some selective sharpening/blurring in post (ie. all in camera)?

Moreover, does one keep two different lenses around, one less sharp than the other, for this purpose?

Capture as much detail as possible, and delete what isn't needed/wanted. If you don't want to post process, then you'll have to be ok with compromises.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 05, 2011 12:19 |  #18

edge100 wrote in post #12882734 (external link)
There. I disagree with that, too.

Once again, I would ask, how does one go about shooting a portrait where the eyelashes are tack sharp, but the skin on the face is smooth and wrinkle/line-free, without doing some selective sharpening/blurring in post (ie. all in camera)?

Moreover, does one keep two different lenses around, one less sharp than the other, for this purpose?

Capture as much detail as possible, and delete what isn't needed/wanted. If you don't want to post process, then you'll have to be ok with compromises.

Your requirements for what you want sharp vs not is not universal... Don't push your requirements into this discussion as a generic basis for everyone else. Also, my comments still hold. For what you are shooting and for the requirements your client is expecting (whether there is a client or you are that client), then you have a need for something supremely sharp. That is not the case for other situations or for other people.

Again, there are products that exist that purposely give the operator unsharp images. Obviously there is a need, otherwise there wouldn't be filters or lenses for this purpose, everyone would just shoot with razor sharp lenses, and spend time in software later.

http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1312564​922&sr=8-1 (external link)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 12:33 |  #19

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12882746 (external link)
Your requirements for what you want sharp vs not is not universal... Don't push your requirements into this discussion as a generic basis for everyone else. Also, my comments still hold. For what you are shooting and for the requirements your client is expecting (whether there is a client or you are that client), then you have a need for something supremely sharp. That is not the case for other situations or for other people.

Again, there are products that exist that purposely give the operator unsharp images. Obviously there is a need, otherwise there wouldn't be filters or lenses for this purpose, everyone would just shoot with razor sharp lenses, and spend time in software later.

http://www.amazon.com …TF8&qid=1312564​922&sr=8-1 (external link)

Yep; there are soft focus lenses. Doesn't mean that blurring in post is not preferable.

I will grant you that in the specific case where you want the entire image to be un-sharp, a soft lens is the way to go. I have to admit, I've never come across a situation in which I wanted everything to be blurry. Even if I did, unless it represented 100% of the shots I took at a specific focal length, I wouldn't want to carry around a specific lens just for this effect. I'd rather do it in 5 seconds in post.

Capture everything, spend 5 seconds tossing what isn't needed. Best way to go.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frugal
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Northern CA
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:12 as a reply to  @ edge100's post |  #20

Again, there are products that exist that purposely give the operator unsharp images. Obviously there is a need, otherwise there wouldn't be filters or lenses for this purpose, everyone would just shoot with razor sharp lenses, and spend time in software later.

http://www.amazon.com/​Canon-135mm-So...2564922&sr=8-1 (external link)

One lens introduced in 1987 for portrait photography during the film era.

Once again, I would ask, how does one go about shooting a portrait where the eyelashes are tack sharp, but the skin on the face is smooth and wrinkle/line-free, without doing some selective sharpening/blurring in post (ie. all in camera)?

+1

our requirements for what you want sharp vs not is not universal... Don't push your requirements into this discussion as a generic basis for everyone else.

Can you give an example of a situation where you'd want the whole image out of focus?


Richard
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:24 |  #21

Frugal wrote in post #12882977 (external link)
Can you give an example of a situation where you'd want the whole image out of focus?

And one in which this could not be achieved simply by de-focusing the lens??


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:29 as a reply to  @ Frugal's post |  #22

^^Too sharp and out of focus are two extremes, I am not going to be pulled into that argument, that is not the point. AGAIN for what someone shoots, for their clientel, and their time allowance or desire to post process, there could be an image that is too sharp from the camera.

^Good for you that you want parts of your image razor sharp and others are just sharp enough or a bit blurred, using software, however that is not applicable to 100% of the other photographers out there for what they shoot.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dumbttt
Member
110 posts
Joined Jul 2011
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:33 as a reply to  @ TeamSpeed's post |  #23

There is no such thing as too sharp. You can always blur the image if you want it blurry, the reverse is not true.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:37 |  #24

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12883060 (external link)
^^Too sharp and out of focus are two extremes, I am not going to be pulled into that argument, that is not the point. AGAIN for what someone shoots, for their clientel, and their time allowance or desire to post process, there could be an image that is too sharp from the camera.

I agree with you, many images ARE too sharp from the camera. That's why we post-process. Why does this hypothetical 'lowest common denominator' photographer of yours have such an aversion to post-processing?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12883060 (external link)
^Good for you that you want parts of your image razor sharp and others are just sharp enough or a bit blurred, using software, however that is not applicable to 100% of the other photographers out there for what they shoot.

Give me an example of where you want blur, any amount of blur, across the entire image, AND where slightly de-focusing the lens cannot achieve this.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:37 |  #25

dumbttt wrote in post #12883083 (external link)
There is no such thing as too sharp. You can always blur the image if you want it blurry, the reverse is not true.

Seems to be the general - no - almost unanimous consensus, doesn't it?


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jasonlitka
Senior Member
Avatar
900 posts
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Exton, PA
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:40 |  #26

alphatango wrote in post #12882216 (external link)
I have to say my 100L is insanely sharp.

So is mine. Awesome lens.


Jason Litka | Utter Ramblings (external link)
7D, Rebel T2i, 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, 70-300mm f/4-5.6L, 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM, 24mm f/1.4L II USM, 10-22mm USM, 17-85mm IS USM, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Speedlite 270EX, Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5, Fuji X100s on order.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
38,981 posts
Gallery: 115 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7458
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:45 |  #27

edge100 wrote in post #12883109 (external link)
Seems to be the general - no - almost unanimous consensus, doesn't it?

Whew, you got me, like 5 people.... Yikes...

Perhaps this article will explain the differences here. A few of you keep equating soft focus with out of focus, which would be wrong. Also, some people have jobs that require them to send in unaltered image files, but they still want this effect, so they need a lens that is not razor sharp, so either a special SF lens or a filter. This will be my last post here, NOT everyone wants a razor sharp photo out of camera every single time they shoot. They may also not want to photoshop each and every photo they take, nor maybe would they have that ability to do so.

Photoshop is a great tool, but it is also a crutch, there are many other optical tools out there to produce creative images and look more natural as well.

http://luisegonzalez.h​ubpages.com …s-and-Kirlian-Photography (external link)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 535
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:45 |  #28

Photoshop has made things like the 135mm soft-focus lens into interesting historical curiosity pieces. Even more specifically, the Presence->Clarity slider in Lightroom (try it on a portrait if you haven't). The "soft focus" wasn't out-of-focus softness, it was deliberately introduced spherical aberration. Before this neat lens existed, there were filters and even just the old pantyhose over the lens trick...


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IvanKutsarov
Member
72 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:46 |  #29

Here are two examples with my Zeiss 100 @ f2.0, thats sharp!! Zeiss for life!)) This lens made my 70-200 MKII look like cheapo kit garbage! :)

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6132/6011854791_214a41f4d1_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56619704@N08/6​011854791/  (external link)
untitled-6437-2 (external link) by Ivan Kutsarov (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6122/6012400682_9c138e7714_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56619704@N08/6​012400682/  (external link)
untitled-6437 (external link) by Ivan Kutsarov (external link), on Flickr

Canon EOS 5D Mark II EG-S , Zeiss Planar T* 2/100 ZE, 70-200 2.8 IS II USM, Sigma 50 1.4, 580 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 13:52 |  #30

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12883174 (external link)
Whew, you got me, like 5 people.... Yikes...

Perhaps this article will explain the differences here. A few of you keep equating soft focus with out of focus, which would be wrong. Also, some people have jobs that require them to send in unaltered image files, but they still want this effect, so they need a lens that is not razor sharp, so either a special SF lens or a filter. This will be my last post here, NOT everyone wants a razor sharp photo out of camera every single time they shoot. They may also not want to photoshop each and every photo they take, nor maybe would they have that ability to do so.

Who are these 'some people' that need soft focus but can't edit?

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12883174 (external link)
Photoshop is a great tool, but it is also a crutch, there are many other optical tools out there to produce creative images and look more natural as well.

Garbage; utter garbage. If your images come out of PS looking unnatural, you're doing it wrong. PS (or LR, or Aperture, or whatever) is just part of the chain from input to output. Ever get a 35mm negative printed at a lab? Guess what: someone is making an editorial decision on that photo, because paper can't reproduce the DR of negative film. Editing in PS is no different than that.

That damn Ansel Adams; always using the 'crutch' of dodging and burning in the darkroom. Fraud!

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12883174 (external link)
This will be my last post here...

I doubt it. Statements like that hardly ever hold.


Street and editorial photography in Toronto, Canada (external link)
Mirrorless: Fujifilm X-Pro1
Film: Leica MP | Leica M2 | CV Nokton 35/1.4 | CV Nokton 40 f/1.4 | Leitz Summitar 50 f/2 | Canon 50 f/1.2 LTM | Mamiya 7 | Mamiya 80 f/4.0 | Mamiya 150 f/4.5 | Mamiya 43 f/4.5
How to get good colour from C-41 film scans (external link)

Digitizing film with a digital camera (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,642 views & 0 likes for this thread
Too sharp
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kenf
681 guests, 282 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.