OK, I've shot 500 images with the Nikon and I'm starting to see something. Lots of you believe the Nikon Coolpix 5700 isn't sharp.

Before I attack the "is it sharp or not?" question, let's look at what sharpness really is:

First of all, there are two definitions I'll use for sharpness.

1) "Real" sharpness.
2) "Apparent" sharpness.

Real sharpness is what all the reviewers test for (especially Phil). That is, how many lines per image can the camera resolve. I'll let Phil decide who wins this one (although, looking at all the images posted lately, I think the Nikon will win this one hands down -- at least among cameras costing $1200 or less).

But, lots of you are bashing the Nikon on "apparent" sharpness. You know, you look at a photo and say "that is soft" or "that isn't sharp."

Let's go back to the darkroom days. How would you "sharpen up" an image in the darkroom? Anyone remember the Dektol days? Yes, that's right, you'd use a #3 or a #4 filter in the enlarger. What did that do? It increased the contrast of the image. (You color freaks might have tried Cibachrome -- it did the same thing as a #3 filter).

So, that's hint #1. Photos that are higher contrast "look" sharper, even if they aren't "really".

What else would you do? I'd print my images slightly dark. A darker image usually looks sharper than a blown out light one (also, printing a little dark usually increased contrast too by getting rid of details in the shadow areas).

So, hint #2. Photos that are slightly dark look a little sharper, even if they really aren't.

What else affects sharpness? Well, in today's digital age, you can run a variety of algorithms (translation: Photoshop filters) to try and artificially sharpen an image.

Hint #3. Run your images through Photoshop to give them that "sharp" look.

I worked a long time in film to try to make my images super sharp. I found, for instance, that slower film was sharper than faster film. (Duh, but I'm putting that here for the newbies who might stumble here). So, on your digital camera, running at 100ISO sensitivity will be sharper than "gaining up" your camera to 800ISO (the images I used below were shot at about 200ISO, so there's a bit more noise in them than if I had manually set the ISO to 100 -- automatic meters don't know that you're using a tripod so they'll try to go for a usable image, which might not be what you need for the best image).

I also found that on average my images would be 30% sharper if I used a tripod (even at fast shutter speeds). There's a reason that Ansel Adams always used a tripod (other than his camera was simply very heavy).

Now, let's look at an image: http://www.pbase.com/image/3221622

First of all, that's an unretouched original image from my Nikon 5700. I shot this on a tripod indoors. Doesn't this look a little soft? It's gotta be due to a shitty camera, right?

Wrong.

Nikon has done something very smart here. They have done very little in-camera processing and they've given you the choice on whether or not you want to sharpen the image.

Now, let's look at a new version of the same image. On this one I've increased the contrast and applied Photoshop 5.5's unsharp mask filter three times. http://www.pbase.com/image/3225683

That one is a LOT sharper. Guess what? They are THE SAME IMAGE!!!

How can that be? Because I've applied my "tricks" to make an "apparently sharper image."

Please note. Both images have the same resolution. The first image has the same data as the second, just the second has been manipulated to look sharper.

I like the second image better.

But, Nikon gave me the choice. As an advanced photographer, I far prefer these images and these choices to the ones other camera manufacturers have made for me.

Why don't I want the camera to "sharpen" the images for me? Well, because that will mean giving up shadow detail (increasing the contrast means giving something up) or applying an algorithm that might do nasty things to the image (note how images from other camera manufacturers have "halos" around wires and telephone poles -- those are artifacts of the sharpening algorithm). With the Nikon YOU ARE IN CONTROL. With other cameras, the camera is in control. You can't get rid of a halo in an image that's already there. Applying a blur filter won't get rid of it, sorry.

Now, you might say "well, can't I take a "sharper" image off of a Minolta or a Canon and blur it to get the same image the Nikon will give you." To that I say emphatically "no."

When you blur an image you destroy data. It goes away.

The Nikon images are simply better images and will perform better all the way around.

So, if you think your images are a little soft, well, then, open Photoshop and increase the contrast and apply a little sharpening and all will be well.

If you like to be in control of your photography, it's my thesis that you'll like the Nikon better than other camera manufacturers out there. If you're a point-and-shoot photographer who wants apparently sharp photos without doing post-processing, then go for the other cameras out there -- they'll better meet your needs.

Note how the second image shows a lot of "noise?" Well, yes, accentuating the sharpness does accentuate noise as well. I think it's funny how the second image looks uncannily like those you are seeing over in the Minolta forum.

Note: I didn't apply an anti-noise product to these images. If you really wanna kick a++ with your photography (no matter what camera you choose) you'll learn how to use anti-noise products as well as sharpening filters in Photoshop.

Speaking of which, I'd love to know of additional tricks. This image took me about 60 seconds to "sharpen" so I'm sure with three or four minutes I can find a whole lot of things to do to improve my photography.

So, let the "is it sharp or not?" debate start. :-)