70-200 2.8LII extreme sharp shots or special pp ?

This photographer uses the 70-200 2.8LII for portraits, but her shots are extremely sharp.
Did you ever get such sharp shots with your 70-200 2.8LII, or do you think she used extra post-processing?
https://www.facebook.c​om/sanbiancophotograph​y/

What is "extra post processing" ?

I think there is unprocessed, ie direct from camera or post processed.
So if the question is "are these post processed" I would guess yes, simply because it would be unusual to shoot portraits and do no post processing.
These could be shot JPG with in camera sharpness set to maximum., but I doubt it.
If a 5DSR was used (with no AA filter) the results should be sharper than your 6D.

I think they appear to be sharp but not unusually sharp or unexpectedly sharp for a 70-200 2.8L II and assuming not shot with 5DSR they have had some sharpening applied.

Considering that Facebook page has a link to an editing workshop/class/webinar (I didn't follow the link and don't necessarily want to advertise for it); I'd certainly say there's post processing going on. Take a look at her own before/after samples.

Trick is starting with the right ingredients as no amount of sharpening can make an out of focus shot in focus. Which if you can check MFA and it needs adjustment do it; and spot focus over the eye and take a few, when chimping, zoom in and check the eye. Pull up a DOF calculator and you can do the math even in the 100-200mm range, if you're wide open, the slightest of movements camera or model could mean it's time to adjust again.

Some but definitely not all are also helped by subject separation from the background in color and distance, make what is in focus crisp against a smooth monotone bokeh wall.

I think just about any Canon lens is capable of that degree of sharpness. Some at f/5.6, some at f/2. There is a LOT more going on here than native sharpness. I have no complaints about sharpness from any of my lenses. Most of them don't even have red rings.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18046276
This photographer uses the 70-200 2.8LII for portraits, but her shots are extremely sharp.
Did you ever get such sharp shots with your 70-200 2.8LII, or do you think she used extra post-processing?
https://www.facebook.c​om/sanbiancophotograph​y/

Lots and lots of editing to get that look. It's not the lens, at all.

Very best,

I have the 6D and 70-200 ii.. I found that I was not getting the sharpness I knew was possible. I micro adjusted my 6D using the "Dot tune method". THere is a great 18minute video on youtube about doing this. It took some time to get in my head on what I was doing but once I understood it, its super simple!!
HUGE difference in my image quality!!!
I recommend trying it out!
Good luck!

Lens sharpness (resolving power) doesn't really factor in that much when a photo is shrunk down for presentation on the web. Even slightly motion-blurred or focus-missed shots can look sharp when downsampled from 20+ MP originals to 1MP web jpegs with sharpening. I think there is some other quality or combination of qualities about this photo that are making them stand out to you, which likely have nothing to do with the lens's sharpness. Contrast and the difference in level of detail between in and out of focus areas also affect image quality in ways that people perceive and refer to as "sharpness".

absplastic wrote in post #18047063
Lens sharpness (resolving power) doesn't really factor in that much when a photo is shrunk down for presentation on the web. Even slightly motion-blurred or focus-missed shots can look sharp when downsampled from 20+ MP originals to 1MP web jpegs with sharpening. I think there is some other quality or combination of qualities about this photo that are making them stand out to you, which likely have nothing to do with the lens's sharpness. Contrast and the difference in level of detail between in and out of focus areas also affect image quality in ways that people perceive and refer to as "sharpness".

Agree that other factors than lens sharpness can result in an image appearing sharp.
While still significantly reduced in size, the image of the girl with her arm on the rock is 2048 x 1463 pixels which does allow a pretty good assessment.
https://web.facebook.c​om …469927427/?type​=3&theater

To my limited knowledge, the only real quantitative assessment of sharpness (at least at a practical, consumer level) is done through a program called Focal. I forget that actual term they use, but the software actually assigns a value to the sharpness of a target image.

In real life, sharpness is completely subjective. Some of her images look razor sharp because of the shallow DOF and the resulting RELATIVE sharpness of the eyes/face in comparison to the strong surrounding bokeh. My guess is that the models eyes in an f/2.8 shot would appear significantly sharper than an f/5.6 shot, but a program like Focal would actually identify the eyes of the f/5.6 shot to be significantly sharper from a quantitative standpoint since most lens are sharper stopped down than they are wide open.

As a side note, I think the engineering has reached a point where almost all modern lenses are "sharp enough" when viewing digital or printed images at common sizes.

Choderboy wrote in post #18047306
Agree that other factors than lens sharpness can result in an image appearing sharp.
While still significantly reduced in size, the image of the girl with her arm on the rock is 2048 x 1463 pixels which does allow a pretty good assessment.

I think it's enough resolution to see that the shot was acceptably in focus, but not anywhere near enough for any meaningful assessment of the capability or sharpness of the lens. 2048x1463 is about a 3 megapixel image, which even Canon's worst quality lenses (e.g. 75-300 models) can out-resolve by a factor of 2 or more. One does not need a 70-200mm f/2.8 mk II to make a perfectly sharp 3MP image.

You can get these results even with the 70-200 2.8 is 1 IMO. There's a lot of processing in these shots. then lens makes life easier, but it's the processing that makes these stand out.

Sometimes you just get lucky.
I don't do a ton of post possessing, but on occasion a photo will seem extremely sharp.
I shoot with nice equipment and have high expectations. My skill is the biggest limiting factor.

Could be the way the photographer uploads the pictures to Facebook as well...

Facebook does some pretty heavy compression on JPEG's, but not on PNG's.

Choderboy wrote in post #18047306
Agree that other factors than lens sharpness can result in an image appearing sharp.
While still significantly reduced in size, the image of the girl with her arm on the rock is 2048 x 1463 pixels which does allow a pretty good assessment.
https://web.facebook.c​om …469927427/?type​=3&theater

the only size i see for that photo is 960X685...

i don't think you can really use facebook images to judge how sharp a lens is...

DreDaze wrote in post #18052348
the only size i see for that photo is 960X685...

i don't think you can really use facebook images to judge how sharp a lens is...

2048x1463.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.