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 08 Jan 2012 (Sunday) 09:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is sharpness overrated on this site?

 
2slo
Cream of the Crop
6,584 posts
Gallery: 610 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 5735
Joined Oct 2011
     
Jan 08, 2012 10:34 as a reply to  @ post 13667557 |  #16

Interesting topic. I'm very critical of my own photos and tend to delete those which I don't consider sharp enough, even though the lighting and composition may be ok.
I think it's important to many people, myself included, to know that the set up they are using is capable of producing very sharp images. Having established that there is no front/ back focus issues with what I'm using, I feel comfortable to move on and consider sharpness as one element of an acceptable photograph.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PHughes
Senior Member
364 posts
Gallery: 23 photos
Likes: 69
Joined Nov 2009
     
Jan 08, 2012 10:55 |  #17

What I find bizarre is that so many people are checking sharpness via pixel peeking and complaining, then over-processing the image, or even processing it to give that "vintage" look rendering the whole sharpness factor a moot point.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
modchild
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: Lincoln, Uk
     
Jan 08, 2012 11:09 |  #18

If most of the photos we take today were put on 6x4 or 7x5 photo paper, as the majority used to be, we wouldn't see most of the softness that we do when pixel peeping at 100% on the computer. When I bring a shot up on screen it's size is approx 15" x 10"(big enough for A4 coverage) and the majority of the photos look sharply focussed and clear. When blown up to 100% they come out 6'6" x 4'6" which is huge and bound to show up some abberations whether it's focus or noise etc. How many people would ever make a print this size just to see if it's sharp. We are human and the cameras and lenses are designed and built by human and by nature we are prone to the odd mistake. People should concentrate more on the overall photo rather than singling out parts which are slightly OOF.

I don't do any PP and shoot 99.9% in Jpeg and although a few of the photos I look at at 15" x 10" do look a tiny bit soft I can live with it. I never set out to be perfect nor would I want to be but I enjoy the photos I take and I enjoy the time I take them. I have over 40,000 photos that I have taken in the past years and although the first ones were taken on a 1.3Mp camera I'm still proud of them even if they are soft by todays standard.


EOS 5D MkIII, EOS 70D, EOS 650D, EOS M, Canon 24-70 f2.8L MkII, Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS MkII, Canon 100 f2.8L Macro, Canon 17-40 f4L IS, Canon 24-105 f4L IS, Canon 300 f4L IS, Canon 85 f1.8, Canon 50 f1.4, Canon 40 f2.8 STM, Canon 35 f2, Sigma 150-500 OS, Tamron 18-270 PZD, Tamron 28-300 VC, 580EX II Flash, Nissin Di866 MkII Flash, Sigma EM 140 Macro Flash and other bits.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:04 |  #19
bannedPermanent ban

Composition, lighting and photo impact first. Without those elements you have a sharp snapshot that could have been taken with any p&s these days. To me, sharpness is just quality of gear and technique...the true photography is capturing the emotional impact in the image. You can easily master sharpness, but to deliver impact photos on a consistent basis...well that is where the true skill comes in.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Veemac
Goldmember
2,098 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Arizona, USA
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:05 as a reply to  @ modchild's post |  #20

As long as my photos are in focus and sharp at normal viewing resolution, that's good enough for me. I don't pixel-peep everything at 200%, obsess over test charts and/or screw around trying to MA lenses that don't show a need for MA. You can drive yourself crazy getting too OCD about measurebation.

Too many people look for/create problems that aren't even there, IMO. Many of the "Is this lens sharp?" threads show people shooting a picture of some low-contrast object handheld in dim room light at the borderline of MFD using something like ISO 3200, f/22, 1/4 second, and thinking they have a bad lens because the picture isn't sharp. You'd get a much more realistic idea of how your lens performs by going out and shooting some normal (i.e. "real world) photos in decent light.


Mac
-Stuff I Use-

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ScPhotoMom
Goldmember
Avatar
2,312 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Jan 2009
Location: South Carolina
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:11 |  #21

2slo wrote in post #13667616 (external link)
Interesting topic. I'm very critical of my own photos and tend to delete those which I don't consider sharp enough, even though the lighting and composition may be ok.
I think it's important to many people, myself included, to know that the set up they are using is capable of producing very sharp images. Having established that there is no front/ back focus issues with what I'm using, I feel comfortable to move on and consider sharpness as one element of an acceptable photograph.

Ditto this for me


My Flickr (external link) - My Gear -My facebook (external link)
Canon 7d Mark II - Canon 40D - Canon 580ex - Canon 28-135mm(3.5) - Canon EF 17-55mm(2.8) - Canon 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III - Canon 85mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cheezz
Member
172 posts
Joined Apr 2010
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:22 |  #22

Buy a $1900 lens. If it doesn't take sharp pictures when you want it.....what would you do?
There's your answer.


Canon 7D // EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM, EF 85mm f1.8 USM, 50mm 1.8 II Nifty Fifty, EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM kit lens, EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS, 430EX II
Added: EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6
Added: EF 70-200mm f4L IS
Added: 1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bazinga
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
361 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Los Angeles County, California
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:45 |  #23

cheezz wrote in post #13668116 (external link)
Buy a $1900 lens. If it doesn't take sharp pictures when you want it.....what would you do?
There's your answer.

Work on my technique.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,502 posts
Gallery: 126 photos
Likes: 1282
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:49 |  #24

My take....

Virtually all of my lenses are purchased brand new. I am extremely particular when it comes to sharpness because if I get a bummed copy I will return it. That being said I am 100% confident that if my images are soft or not tack sharp its "my fault".

Looking at very old printed photos from the past I see that sharpness was not exactly top priority amongst casual shooters and even proclaimed "pros". We are living in a different time regarding image quality since we have the option of analyzing photos a second after we push the shutter button.

That being said I do keep some "not so sharp" photos sometimes because the composition made it a keeper. Small printing those type of photos will hide the softness in most cases.

Oddly I'll admit when I gaze at full time photographers website I will say I sometime make judgement calls (my opinion) of their work based on post processing skills based on intentional/deliberate split toning manipulation or horrible colour management skills (horrible off skin tones? or perfect skin tones) and of course composition and sharpness/detail/clari​ty. This is where I call some "full time photogs" making a living off of photography as a job or "Professional full time photographers" who's skills/eye/post processing defines the true title "professional".

I think if people simply did not care much about sharpness the world would be different. Photographers are "picky" this day and age since IQ is a showcase in the digital world. All photographers making a living off of their work would be using first generation dslr's or good quality point and shoots if the general public didn't have higher expectations of a full time professional. This just doesn't happen so sharpness is quite important IMO.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,566 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:53 |  #25

How about putting it another way.....how many people would trash an other wise good photo if they zoomed in to pixel level and could see that it wasn't tack sharp (either a little motion blur or slightly missed focus)? Photography is my job so I'm always in the position of having to decide if an image is worthy of selling. I'll always opt to keep the slightly soft images if they are worthy in other respects and I've never had a complaint. The way I look at it, if I trash an image, I could be trashing money so I always think twice before hitting the delete button. That said, I must draw the line somewhere because I don't want my name associated with poor quality work.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Canonswhitelensesrule
Goldmember
Avatar
3,648 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Surrey, B.C.
     
Jan 08, 2012 12:57 |  #26

Bazinga wrote in post #13668222 (external link)
Work on my technique.

What if your technique is absolutely flawless, yet your images are still NOT SHARP?

You can have ideal composition, perfect lighting, exact white balance, shutter speed, and aperture for the PERFECT photograph, yet if the resulting image is NOT SHARP, it will look like CRAP!! (Unless you're purposely going for the "out of focus" look.)

Yes, composition, and technical aspects are all important, but IMHO sharpness...i.e. the main subject clearly in focus, is the most important aspect.

If someone had the opportunity to capture a once in a lifetime event in a photograph, and only had a split second to do so, I think having the subject in focus would be far more important than whether or not the resulting photograph was "composed" correctly. Editors wouldn't give a $#!t how it was composed, as long as it was in focus.

So IMHO sharpness is very important, and NOT overrated.


Photographers do it in 1/1,000th of a second...but the memory lasts forever! ;)
"It's only cheating if you get caught!" - Al Bundy
People who THINK they know it all really annoy those of us who DO!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,566 posts
Likes: 35
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Jan 08, 2012 13:14 |  #27

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #13668276 (external link)
What if your technique is absolutely flawless, yet your images are still NOT SHARP?

You can have ideal composition, perfect lighting, exact white balance, shutter speed, and aperture for the PERFECT photograph, yet if the resulting image is NOT SHARP, it will look like CRAP!! (Unless you're purposely going for the "out of focus" look.)

Yes, composition, and technical aspects are all important, but IMHO sharpness...i.e. the main subject clearly in focus, is the most important aspect.

If someone had the opportunity to capture a once in a lifetime event in a photograph, and only had a split second to do so, I think having the subject in focus would be far more important than whether or not the resulting photograph was "composed" correctly. Editors wouldn't give a $#!t how it was composed, as long as it was in focus.

So IMHO sharpness is very important, and NOT overrated.

I would disagree....just talk to all of the Bigfoot photographers out there....."in focus" obviously plays a very small role (if any) ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Deep
Goldmember
Avatar
1,907 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 868
Joined Apr 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
     
Jan 08, 2012 13:16 |  #28

Things people on this site are known to fret over:

(x) Sharpness
( ) Photography


mikedeep.com (external link) - rocket launch photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,145 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 458
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 08, 2012 13:19 as a reply to  @ Mike Deep's post |  #29

(x) creamy bokey

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vrjosh
Senior Member
260 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Kansas
     
Jan 08, 2012 13:26 |  #30

I have several photos that I have printed from my old rebel XT with cheap consumer grade lenses that when viewed at 100% were not tack sharp by an means yet look great printed at 8x10. And that's an 8MP file. If you resized it to 18MP I can't even imagine what the 100% crops would look like. While sharpness is important, most of the time as long as the picture is in focus the sharpness is a moot point.

With that said, yes I look at some pictures at 100% and appreciate a sharp photo. But if I went through every single wedding picture at 100% I would go insane. Speaking of wedding pictures, what has amazed me is that in the 5 weddings that I have done the bride's favorite picture was never the one that was perfectly sharp. If I were to throw out all the pictures that weren't tack sharp they would have never have seen them.

We can argue about this till the second coming and never all agree, which is ok, but I think that most people place a lot less on sharpness than this forum will lead you to believe.


bobble.smugmug.com (external link)

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

10,386 views & 0 likes for this thread
Is sharpness overrated on this site?
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 cossk12946
935 guests, 322 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.