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

 
edge100
Goldmember
1,920 posts
Likes: 16
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Aug 05, 2011 17:44 |  #46

Frugal wrote in post #12884105 (external link)
Plus I've never seen a news photo - web - television or print that I thought was too sharp

Precisely.

This is a pointless hypothetical situation. In practice, you almost always want to capture as sharp an image as possible.


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)
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 535
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Aug 05, 2011 18:21 |  #47

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #12883718 (external link)
I don't believe I have. Photojournalists in some cases do need to take portraits, and based on their profession and code of ethics which dictates that they not edit, could result in an image that may in fact be too "sharp" to a point where it is unflattering towards the subject.

This is bordering on absurd. You brought up photojournalists as an example of someone who might want a less-sharp portrait without PP, in response to a comment about whether or not there was still a market for a 'soft focus' lens like the Canon 135mm. Have you ever seen or heard of a PJ using a soft-focus lens? You've seen what photos through these lenses look like, right? It's a deliberately dreamy look that--to me anyways--only seems appropriate for wedding, baby or maybe yearbook photos. I can't even imagine a scenario where a PJ would use such a lens. 9/10 PJs with Canon gear are using lenses like the 24-70L or 70-200L, not a studio soft-focus portrait lens!


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
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Aug 05, 2011 19:22 as a reply to  @ absplastic's post |  #48

I worked as photojournalist for 17 years and never once have I heard of a photojournalist requiring or purposely shooting a less than sharp image..

Silly even to imagine this.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBurningCrown
Goldmember
Avatar
4,882 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2008
     
Aug 05, 2011 20:34 |  #49

Frugal wrote in post #12884105 (external link)
So what's the problem? There are plenty of cheap soft lenses for them to choose from:)

Ah, but the cheap soft lenses tend not to have constant apertures, fast focusing, weathersealing...

absplastic wrote in post #12884480 (external link)
This is bordering on absurd. You brought up photojournalists as an example of someone who might want a less-sharp portrait without PP, in response to a comment about whether or not there was still a market for a 'soft focus' lens like the Canon 135mm. Have you ever seen or heard of a PJ using a soft-focus lens?

...no, I haven't. And I agree with you - it doesn't make sense for a PJ to use a soft-focus lens. My point is in regards to the topic in general, though that post was talking to someone who brought up soft-focus as an example. There is such a thing as being "too sharp," and photojournalism is one of those areas where that becomes a problem.

Of course everything is objective, so my too sharp with tons of moire is someone else's example of the wonderful "sharpness" provided by digital sensors.

yogestee wrote in post #12884693 (external link)
I worked as photojournalist for 17 years and never once have I heard of a photojournalist requiring or purposely shooting a less than sharp image..

"Sharp" is a buzzword. You probably never heard someone trying to shoot a "bad" or a "blurry" picture either...


-Dave
Gear List & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nickc84
Goldmember
Avatar
2,064 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 05, 2011 22:07 |  #50

IvanKutsarov wrote in post #12883181 (external link)
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! :)

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

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

Its sharp but I wouldn't brag about it. I can get just as sharp shots with a 50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tomcat7886
Goldmember
Avatar
3,277 posts
Joined Jun 2011
     
Aug 05, 2011 22:33 |  #51

Its sharp even when it is cropped.


Canon T2i | 18-55mm IS Kit | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC | Joby Gorillapod SLR-Zoommmmm! | Black Canon Edition Crumpler Industry Disgrace
Crumpler on Sale: BLACK https://photography-on-the.net ...ghlight=industry+di​sgrace

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nickc84
Goldmember
Avatar
2,064 posts
Likes: 78
Joined Jul 2010
     
Aug 05, 2011 22:36 |  #52

and?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sp1207
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Right Behind You
     
Aug 05, 2011 22:58 |  #53

I'm not sure I see the difference between the photographer choosing a lens (explicit action to alter the appearance of an image) for softness and doing it in post. To me they're identically unacceptable as PJ material.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBurningCrown
Goldmember
Avatar
4,882 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2008
     
Aug 06, 2011 00:37 |  #54

Sp1207 wrote in post #12885605 (external link)
I'm not sure I see the difference between the photographer choosing a lens (explicit action to alter the appearance of an image) for softness and doing it in post. To me they're identically unacceptable as PJ material.

Could you elaborate on that?


-Dave
Gear List & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pedro ­ Zacapa
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
17 posts
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Sweden
     
Aug 06, 2011 01:46 |  #55

I would say no. A picture can not be too sharp.

First it is a matter of what your client want. The client could be a customer, boss or you uncle.
A lot of people tends to believe that if you are a good photograper with expensive gear, you can get what they want out of your camera. Not true. What they want and what your camera and lens can produce can be very different. You have to think about what they want and what you can do with your gear. If they want a picture where part of it is sharp, then you need to get a picture where the areas your clients wants to be sharp is to be really sharp. If it is not possible straight from the camera, then you have to get the whole picture sharp, and pp the rest after. You need sharpnes because you cannot do that in Ps. But you can do it the other way around.

If they dont require a sharp picture then this discussion is irellevant. Then its more about composition, colour and shape.


Just take the damn picture, and dont think about what people say
5D II - 16-35L - Sigma 50 1.4 - 200L 2.8 - Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sp1207
Goldmember
1,835 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Right Behind You
     
Aug 06, 2011 08:23 |  #56

Post vs. In camera is stupid in 2011

TheBurningCrown wrote in post #12885954 (external link)
Could you elaborate on that?

I'm not sure how you want me to elaborate. To me your choice of composition, angle, focus, focal length, aperture, and shutter speed alter the appearance, and yes, emotion of a scene.

Videographers choose 21-24-28mm to give dramatic separation to their scene, and low angles to create a sense of power in the characters shown. These are explicit in-camera actions that change how your scene impacts people.

I don't see an ethical or even material difference in choosing a lens intentionally soft for a portrait (which is stupid anyway btw), and selective skin softening in post.


Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,115 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 06, 2011 08:55 |  #57

It can be very difficult to get some details out of a portrait for example. I find it difficult to get good photos of older folks with a sharp lens. The wrinkles are the problem, and the easy solution is a lens that has reduced sharpness at a good focal length for portraits - the 18-55IS kit lens. This may sound goofy, but the kit lens is a great portrait lens outside when wide open at 55 mm. This is the softest the lens gets, and it works great for portraits of older people - like me.
A sharper lens, e.g. a macro or normal prime, shows every skin flaw. Sure, you can spend lots of time with software and get much of the unwanted detail out of the photo, but it can be convenient to be able to do this with the lens.
The 18-55IS is sharp at middle and short focal lengths, but not so sharp at 50-55mm.
In the past, in film days, I even tried to use a soft focus filter for portraits of older relatives - the results were terrible. A lens that gives you a sharp center with rapidly degrading resolution toward the edges can do the trick.
Despite all of this, I normally look for sharp lenses when I am shopping. Like many of us, I like a lens that will give sharp detail across the frame when stopped down. Wide open, it can be useful to have a softer look.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frugal
Senior Member
Avatar
784 posts
Joined May 2009
Location: Northern CA
     
Aug 06, 2011 11:11 as a reply to  @ artyH's post |  #58

Sure, you can spend lots of time with software and get much of the unwanted detail out of the photo,

I routinely photograph older people with wrinkles and it takes a couple of minutes on PS.

A lens that gives you a sharp center with rapidly degrading resolution toward the edges can do the trick.

That wouldn't work if you are photographing two people and f5.6 doesn't give you much control of the DOF.


Richard
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBurningCrown
Goldmember
Avatar
4,882 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2008
     
Aug 06, 2011 16:02 |  #59

Sp1207 wrote in post #12886896 (external link)
I'm not sure how you want me to elaborate. To me your choice of composition, angle, focus, focal length, aperture, and shutter speed alter the appearance, and yes, emotion of a scene.
...
These are explicit in-camera actions that change how your scene impacts people.

I don't see an ethical or even material difference in choosing a lens intentionally soft for a portrait (which is stupid anyway btw), and selective skin softening in post.

I see your point. I guess the idea is that the former is one of the accepted "issues" with the job (that a camera meant to observe objectively cannot), while the latter can be avoided.


-Dave
Gear List & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brian_R
Goldmember
2,656 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
     
Aug 06, 2011 17:47 |  #60

no such thing as too sharp. i wish all my glass was tack sharp wide open.




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

7,635 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 Pzaloumis
912 guests, 233 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.