Is it Cheating to Sharpen Eyes that Are Out of Focus?

[charley5]

Hi Everyone:

My style of portraiture is to present subjects in a somewhat indistinct fashion. I accomplish this by using a narrow DOF and vintage lenses. But I do insist that at least one eye be sharp. I get about 75% of my images within those parameters, but occasionally miss focus and yet have what might otherwise be a keeper, such as the picture below. I missed focus on both eyes but sharpened them using Topaz Sharpen AI. Now an astute photographer would look at the original and see that my actual point of focus is elsewhere. To save the image, would you resort to sharpening the eyes, or do you consider that falling short of your standards?

-Charles

Original (Pre-Sharpening)

Post-Sharpening

 

[WongRQ]

Hi Everyone:

My style of portraiture is to present subjects in a somewhat indistinct fashion. I accomplish this by using a narrow DOF and vintage lenses. But I do insist that at least one eye be sharp. I get about 75% of my images within those parameters, but occasionally miss focus and yet have what might otherwise be a keeper, such as the picture below. I missed focus on both eyes but sharpened them using Topaz Sharpen AI. Now an astute photographer would look at the original and see that my actual point of focus is elsewhere. To save the image, would you resort to sharpening the eyes, or do you consider that falling short of your standards?

-Charles

Original (Pre-Sharpening)

Post-Sharpening

No, it’s called being smart.

 

[D Cox]

If it looks better, do it. There's no such thing as cheating in art. (News photography is different.)

But keep a copy of the unsharpened version in case you change your mind later.

Don Cox

 

[theworstphotographerontheinternet]

As Don said, I don't think that "cheating" is really a thing in this type of photography. Use whatever tools you have at your disposal to create the image you're aiming at, it's that simple.

 

[charley5]

If it looks better, do it. There's no such thing as cheating in art. (News photography is different.)

But keep a copy of the unsharpened version in case you change your mind later.

Don Cox

Good advice, Don. Yet even art usually has a technical foundation behind it. But I totally understand what you are saying.

-Charles

 

[charley5]

As Don said, I don't think that "cheating" is really a thing in this type of photography. Use whatever tools you have at your disposal to create the image you're aiming at, it's that simple.

Great. Thank you.

 

[richiebee]

It's no more cheating than taking multiple photos to hope that one has eyes in focus. I mean, if you can't nail it on the first try, then what's the point?

That said, I usually discard photos that don't have one eye in focus, for the same reason as you're thinking about it... you don't know who's watching and judging you. A photographer will notice when the focal point is elsewhere.

 

[New Day Rising]

Nope.

Unless your photo is for forensic purposes, or (perhaps) photojournalism, or you are entering it in a competition that has very strict rules that prohibit sharpening, then in my view there is no such thing as cheating in photography. You are simply tweaking your photo in post to get the result you find most aesthetically pleasing or otherwise achieves your objectives as a photographer.

 

[charley5]

Nope.

Unless your photo is for forensic purposes, or (perhaps) photojournalism, or you are entering it in a competition that has very strict rules that prohibit sharpening, then in my view there is no such thing as cheating in photography. You are simply tweaking your photo in post to get the result you find most aesthetically pleasing or otherwise achieves your objectives as a photographer.

Thanks. Just confirms what I was almost sure about.

Charles

 

[kierenlon]

I thought this was going to be a thread about laser eye surgery ....l

 

[charley5]

It's no more cheating than taking multiple photos to hope that one has eyes in focus. I mean, if you can't nail it on the first try, then what's the point?

That said, I usually discard photos that don't have one eye in focus, for the same reason as you're thinking about it... you don't know who's watching and judging you. A photographer will notice when the focal point is elsewhere.

Cheating was probably the wrong term. Which is why I brought it to standards, which is obviously subjective.

 

[Klaus dk]

As Don said, I don't think that "cheating" is really a thing in this type of photography. Use whatever tools you have at your disposal to create the image you're aiming at, it's that simple.

I agree with the above, but in this case, I think the OP did not create the image (he says) he's aiming at. More than anything else, he's cheating himself.

I think the OP is letting himself down by missing focus after having gone through all this trouble of acquiring exotic manual focus legacy lenses for the last 0.1% of select bokeh, but ultimately, that is not for me to assess.

 

[arbeterfroyen]

Yeah, it depends on what the metric for the art is. General "photography," is basically meaningless these days so go for it, but if I went looking for a darkroom-only print and got some other process, I'd be a little miffed. Or I'm recalling a couple years ago a there was a photog got a prize revoked because a taxidermied animal was used. Similar to a NatGeo with a galaxy photo. They got a photo they liked and obviously pleased the panel and public, but broke the rules/standards. Not the case here, but yeah, different standards will yield different answers.

 

[arbeterfroyen]

I guess conversely, you can feel you cheated if you think you're convincing someone of something you felt you lied about.

If your interest is presenting that you are good at manual lens, no/low edit shooting, then you're at least lying. Not the same as cheating though.

I do totally get you though, testing yourself and wanting the best photo right out of the camera and feeling like you're deficient when you don't get that.

But yeah, lying and cheating are different things.

 

[Gato Amarillo]

Is it cheating to adjust color, or contrast? How about dodging and burning? Photographers have been "cheating" for almost 200 years now.

My own eyes are 74 years old and weren't that great to start with, so I think eye detect autofocus is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Except it doesn't always pick the eye I would have chosen. Or sometimes there's a notable difference between the two eyes.

I have been know to bring eyes into balance by slightly blurring one and sharpening the other to make them equally sharp.

Gato

 

[AstroVagabond]

Your money, your work product, your call.

 

[Autonerd]

Not cheating.

Here's the way I see it: The purpose of a photograph (well, one of 'em, anyway) is to show others the world the way the photographer sees it. If the eyes are the key part of a portrait for you, then by all means give the photo that emphasis you want.

There's a similar discussion going on in the Beginner's Forum about color. I don't like oversaturation, however I do sometimes punch up colors in photos if the color is the important element that I want to convey to the viewer.

I think we're talking about the difference between taking photos and making photos.

Aaron

 

[tko]

No such thing as cheating, but that photo looks a little weird. I think the effect is overdone, so the kid looks like an alien. I can see an oval of sharpness around the eyes, including the wrinkles underneath. OH, did you focus underneath the eyes? That really stands out. Why not blur that area while sharping the eyes?

--
no, I won't return to read your witty reply!
professional cynic and contrarian: don't take it personally
http://500px.com/omearak

 

[charley5]

I guess conversely, you can feel you cheated if you think you're convincing someone of something you felt you lied about.

If your interest is presenting that you are good at manual lens, no/low edit shooting, then you're at least lying. Not the same as cheating though.

I do totally get you though, testing yourself and wanting the best photo right out of the camera and feeling like you're deficient when you don't get that.

But yeah, lying and cheating are different things.

I get what you are saying. It really comes down to my personal standards. Aside from posting on various photography forums and having my own website, I don't really plan to do anything grandiose with my photos. I do this for fun, but i am a bit of a perfectionist.... and I don't really present myself as anything... more like present only my photos.

 

[charley5]

As Don said, I don't think that "cheating" is really a thing in this type of photography. Use whatever tools you have at your disposal to create the image you're aiming at, it's that simple.

I agree with the above, but in this case, I think the OP did not create the image (he says) he's aiming at. More than anything else, he's cheating himself.

I think the OP is letting himself down by missing focus after having gone through all this trouble of acquiring exotic manual focus legacy lenses for the last 0.1% of select bokeh, but ultimately, that is not for me to assess.

Actually, it is not so much the bokeh but the DOF and resulting painterly rendering of the subjects. Modern lenses are too perfect for this kind of look. Just saying...