I'd like to see the sharpest pictures ever

Well, apparently I don't know what sharp is, cause in this thread https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=226821
I posted a few examples that I thought were pretty sharp for a 28-135, and immediately got shot down. So it got me thinking, well what is sharp then? I've seen some very sharp pictures on here, but I'm looking to everyone else to post the sharpest picture they can, regardless of who took it (make sure posting is ok if you're not the orignal photog)

I'm not at all sure that proving your point required a second thread, but IMHO the ferret shots were plenty sharp at the POF!

Were they crops or full shots? (forgetting about the shape)

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2116472
... but IMHO the ferret shots were plenty sharp at the POF!

What he said ... and sharp is overrated anyway. Interesting is better and harder to achieve

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #2116472
I'm not at all sure that proving your point required a second thread, but IMHO the ferret shots were plenty sharp at the POF!

on the contrary, this thread was so I could educate myself on what "sharp" really is.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2116480
Were they crops or full shots? (forgetting about the shape)

both of those shots were 100% crops.

In my very humble opinion, people spend way too much time pixel peeping to see if a particular lens is "sharp". I agree with condyk. Is the picture something I want to look at? Is it something that tells a story or provides some social commentary? You could post the sharpest picture in the world, but if doesn't speak to your audience, who cares? On the other hand, some of the most influential photos ever taken would not pass some people's "sharpness" tests.

Just my 2 cents worth...

For 100% crops, that's really really sharp.
Personally, I would never post an image in this thread... as some joker would tell me images weren't really sharp and I'd be really bummed. I'm not kidding. It's a gauntlet thing. Any slight implication that you have a high regard for one of your own pics, and certain types of people start lining up to deflate your ego. One of the things I've noticed on forums,. the moment you make a claim, you are guaranteed that someone will come along and say otherwise.

BeccaNH wrote in post #2116592
In my very humble opinion, people spend way too much time pixel peeping to see if a particular lens is "sharp". I agree with condyk. Is the picture something I want to look at? Is it something that tells a story or provides some social commentary? You could post the sharpest picture in the world, but if doesn't speak to your audience, who cares? On the other hand, some of the most influential photos ever taken would not pass some people's "sharpness" tests.

Just my 2 cents worth...

well said....

Here are a couple of shots I took my first week out with the 17-55. snapped the neighbour's dog. Wide open @ F2.8. Gosh I'm so happy this lens is great wide open. I hate the idea of stopping down.

wait for it....

Sharpish but not that interesting unless you are chummy with the Doggie IMO.

Lol, put it up just for the entertainment. And yes, not very interesting.

someone post a super sharp photo of a naked woman or something...

BeccaNH wrote in post #2116592
In my very humble opinion, people spend way too much time pixel peeping to see if a particular lens is "sharp". I agree with condyk. Is the picture something I want to look at? Is it something that tells a story or provides some social commentary? You could post the sharpest picture in the world, but if doesn't speak to your audience, who cares? On the other hand, some of the most influential photos ever taken would not pass some people's "sharpness" tests.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Seriously dude. Plus, people also spend too much time in my opinion worrying about how wide open a lens is. I am almost certain if you were to show me well shot photos with the 70-200 F4L and F2.8L, I'de have difficulty telling a difference in them other then the more shallow depth of field at 2.8. I mean I supose if your working with low light the 2.8 is something to definitley open yourself up to as an example, but a friend of mine even says that the shallow depth of field makes it difficult to achieve the results you want sometimes.

I'm beginning to learn a lot of things you read here are from people who have a lot of $ and think quite highly of themselves, and sometimes you don't need to go to such extremes to get a good photo.

JaGWiRE wrote in post #2116738
I'm beginning to learn a lot of things you read here are from people who have a lot of $ and think quite highly of themselves, and sometimes you don't need to go to such extremes to get a good photo.

Beware of false prophets and, at your age and with an impressionable nature, other 'false' things that might be attractive to a young man