Question: how to make it?

Hello,

the photos in links below have interesting crystal clearness and crisp:
http://www.dz-foto.lt …varas/AA_VESTUV​ES_020.JPG
http://www.dz-foto.lt …varas/AA_VESTUV​ES_022.JPG
http://www.dz-foto.lt …tuves/2012/ausr​a-aivaras/

How that is achieved? Is that post processing? Camera? lenses?
If that were studio shots - I would maybe guess that it's lighting, but these photos are taken in lot of different situations.
I Google for clear crisp photos, but everywhere advises for good exposure, focus and etc.

There is my photo with good exposure and focus, but there is no that crystal clear picture:
https://docs.google.co​m …1dGKlJOkUPOVVGN​mdLZXVUVmM

Any ideas how to get that view?

Assuming that focus is correct, sharpness is primarily driven by the quality of the lens, although sharpening in post can really make edges and details pop nicely. The difference in sharpness between a bog standard kit lens and something like, say, the Canon 135mm f/2 L, is huge.

I can't access your own example as it's asking me to log into my Google account, for some reason.

My shot is made with EF 85mm f/1.8

In upper left corner there is File menu. Click it and then choose Download (about 6Mb file)
It works for me when I'm logged out

I mean no offence, but I'm not going to download a 6mb file off your server (and even if I wanted to, I'm browsing on an iPad so it's not really an option). If you want to show your image, it would be better to host the image on Flickr or another image host, and post it directly here.

Having said that, the 85mm f/1.8 can shoot pretty damn sharp images once you stop it down to f/2.8 and beyond. I've used that lens to shoot at a lot of gigs and have never had major sharpness issues with it; it's a surprisingly good lens for the price. The important thing to bear in mind with it is simply that you're not going to get maximum sharpness when the lens is wide open.

Is not about the lens. You can get the same DOF look shooting with a fast lens. It is all about the lighting. She is standing by the a window. A bounce flash off the ceiling was used, maybe using a very low power. F2.8 or faster. High ISO.

Errr, I don't wish to be argumentative, but at the end of the day, it is about the lens. Sharpness is primarily determined by the quality of the optics; shoot that same scene with high end glass and entry level glass, and you'd see a difference in sharpness. Not that sharpness is the be all and end all of photography, but the original post was specifically asking about the clarity of the image. While lighting and other environmental factors indeed play a role, the sharpness inherent in the image is due largely to the quality of the glass.

Unless I am misunderstanding what the original poster is actually asking about.

onona wrote in post #14852090
Errr, I don't wish to be argumentative, but at the end of the day, it is about the lens. Sharpness is primarily determined by the quality of the optics; shoot that same scene with high end glass and entry level glass, and you'd see a difference in sharpness. Not that sharpness is the be all and end all of photography, but the original post was specifically asking about the clarity of the image. While lighting and other environmental factors indeed play a role, the sharpness inherent in the image is due largely to the quality of the glass.

As long as you aren't shooting with a kit lens, you are fine. EF 35 f2, 50 f1.4, and even other third party zoom lenses (Tamron 17-50 f2.8) would do. No, you don't need a 35L or 50L or even some Carl Zeiss lenses to get this shot. Is all about the light. The lighting makes these shots. Not the lens.

Its a number of things. Good lens, good light, good composition (keeping clutter away forces you to see the subject. Top notch post processing helps too. arguing lens over light or vice versa is like arguing which ingredient is most important in a good cake.

At no point did I say you NEED any specific lenses to shoot this particular image, I mentioned the 135mm L and compared it to kit glass only to illustrate a point about optic quality in different lenses; it wasn't a suggestion or guess as to what glass had been used in the mentioned examples. My understanding of the original post is that he's asking about the crisp clarity in the image, and when from my perspective, that sharpness comes from decent quality glass, not the lighting. The lighting surely provided ideal settings for shooting, I'm not disputing that. But lighting alone does not create sharp images.

onona wrote in post #14852128
At no point did I say you NEED any specific lenses to shoot this particular image, I mentioned the 135mm L and compared it to kit glass only to illustrate a point about optic quality in different lenses; it wasn't a suggestion or guess as to what glass had been used in the mentioned examples. My understanding of the original post is that he's asking about the crisp clarity in the image, and when from my perspective, that sharpness comes from decent quality glass, not the lighting. The lighting surely provided ideal settings for shooting, I'm not disputing that. But lighting alone does not create sharp images.

Hmm...hehehe...I have no comments. The sooner you learn to "see with the light," the better your photography skill will become. After all, when does a $5k L lens can shoot in the dark???

TooManyShots wrote in post #14852150
Hmm...hehehe...I have no comments. The sooner you learn to "see with the light," the better your photography skill will become. After all, when does a $5k L lens can shoot in the dark???

Wow, it's like you're actually just looking for an argument. I mean, you're clearly not even reading my posts properly, and now you have the audacity to tell me about what I need to know to improve my photography? Complete with passive aggressive smilies and all. Wow, I had no idea I was talking to Photography Jesus.

Is there an ignore list option on this site? If there is, you'll be having the ignoble honour of being the first on it. I have no time for people like you.

onona wrote in post #14852202
Wow, it's like you're actually just looking for an argument. I mean, you're clearly not even reading my posts properly, and now you have the audacity to tell me about what I need to know to improve my photography? Complete with passive aggressive smilies and all. Wow, I had no idea I was talking to Photography Jesus.

Is there an ignore list option on this site? If there is, you'll be having the ignoble honour of being the first on it. I have no time for people like you.

For someone who has only 13 posts and joined up this month, you seem to have a bit of self-righteousness issue. Oh dear....... I will leave you alone for now.

here's my photo in a flickr:

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

limmes wrote in post #14853316
here's my photo in a flickr:

I see that you write that it's the lighting. But if you would check third example link
(http://www.dz-foto.lt …tuves/2012/ausr​a-aivaras/),
so there are much more photos. At home, street, park, church. Everywhere the same clearness, crisp and bright colours.
So it not the lighting. Maybe lens +plus PP?
Any quess about combination?

Do you think lighting only means artificial lighting? It means taking advantage of good light and not shooting in bad light, regardless of its source. I would rather use bad lenses in good light, than great lenses in bad light. Thank god I dont have to make that choice.

limmes wrote in post #14853316
here's my photo in a flickr:

I see that you write that it's the lighting. But if you would check third example link
(http://www.dz-foto.lt …tuves/2012/ausr​a-aivaras/),
so there are much more photos. At home, street, park, church. Everywhere the same clearness, crisp and bright colours.
So it not the lighting. Maybe lens +plus PP?
Any quess about combination?

Thanks for the link. With shots like these, who needs the groom...LOL FYI, notice how the skin looks on all the women. No blemish and smooth. Is it possible? It is only possible through good post processing. Maybe some sort of skin smoothing technique was used. You want a clean, smooth shot? Try to tone down your raw sharpening and contrast......