Unsharp Focus Issue, is it my ap & shutter combo or too much movement?

bnlearle wrote in post #4150189
Your version of my photo looks worse, in my opinion. Here's full resolution to show you how sharp an image can be if focused correctly.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I don't know what we're arguing about. The photo at hand (from the OP) is improperly focused. It looks bad with and without sharpening because it needs to be properly focused first.

Now, my photo above is pleanty sharp for mine and my clients' tastes. Sure, you can sharpen it more but it sort seems like what someone does when they first get photoshop. They enhance everything because they think you're supposed to. You can use saturation to enhance some images and others will look overprocessed with any saturation enhancements. Same goes for sharpening. Less can definitely be more. The above image is sharp for me. I don't want to see sharpening sprinkles all over the place when I don't have to.

Again, nothing against sharpening photos or against you. I just think that the problem with the OP's photo is not a lack of sharpening. It's improperly focused. That's why I took issue with your initial post. Hopefully that puts us on the same page

I don't agree that there are focusing issues on the first image. There may be, there may not be but obviously following Canon's suggestion improved the sharpness. What I tried to bring into this thread was the information that Canon provides on this sharpness issue.

I cannot custom sharpen your full resolution image because I did not have it to work with. If the 300% setting created artifacts then obviously that was too much sharpening for that particular image. But I can't see that when I am not looking at the full image at 100%, which you should always do when sharpening. Canon states that their recommendations for unsharp masking are initial guidelines only. They further recommend that each photo needs to be sharpened depending on the qualities of the particular photo and the final application of that image file. Both are true statements.

I am not arguing but I don't like being confronted with the type of statements you made over the information that I originally posted.

Rick

Rick Rosen wrote in post #4150253
I am not arguing but I don't like being confronted with the type of statements you made over the information that I originally posted.

I'm not sure we even disagree...I think we're sort of arguing over semantics or different points entirely. My point still stands (and it seems several think the same) that the OP's photo is not properly focused. Just look at the leaves behind his head. They are more in focus than the subject. Therefore, it's a focus problem. Maybe it can be remedied to some degree (and maybe that's what you are trying to state?), but it is not, at it's root, a sharpening problem. It's not that it's terribly out of focus, or anything. But I think it's safe to safe that it could have been focused better, fair enough?

I really don't mean to come off rude or like your opinion doesn't matter, so I apologize if I did. Really, I mean that. I just don't think the OP's problem is a sharpening problem, that's all. It seems you disagree, and that's just fine