Reading mode: Light Dark

SD14 Red flower. Is this oversharped?

Go to last post
A

AntOliv

Active member
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
New York, NY, US
SD 14, 18-50 EX macro and SPP4.
Do you consider this oversharped?
(sorry if you saw this on other forum. I post it by mistake)

Thanks for looking.

AOL

 
Yes
AntOliv said:
SD 14, 18-50 EX macro and SPP4.
Do you consider this oversharped?
(sorry if you saw this on other forum. I post it by mistake)

Thanks for looking.

AOL

Click to expand...
--
Laurence

Never look down to test the ground before taking your
next step; only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far
horizon will find the right road.

Dag Hammarskjold

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
 
Is it oversharpened?..... a very good question and not one that I would be prepared to comment on...I suppose it depends on ones interpretation or definition of 'oversharpened'.

Either way I quite like this image...good work.

Regards

Hugh
 
this is not a macro shot - this is a closeup and IMHO there is no creative need to have razor sharp details only on the part of the left side of the bud on top of the red bud itself being a high contrast object in the picture (vs the background)... make that dreamy-creamy instead... or if you want sharpness may be put the whole bud into DOF

--

 
The picture looks unusual, but somehow interesting to me.

I think, as is, for the web, it´s OK.

If You ask for pixelpeeping - then I´d say Yes, because You have seen it by Yourself!

Best,
Uli
 
This reminds me of the simple and accurate way to deal with ethical questions...

If you are pausing to ask the question, the answer is yes.

Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox
 
I would say yes! It is a circumcised patch of sharp surface....looks almost annoying! But it may be the point ... it reminds me of old human skin...
 
Yes - I would say that it is. The petals look strange. But the DOF is also too small. This flower is quite 3D and the depth is large. Smaller aperture is needed.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
 
Thank you for looking.

I agree, this was a casual photo – not enough DOP or attention to other settings – that I was about to trash, but I decide to pass it in SPP4 just to test the reds. For that part, I like it.
Here is the original. As you see, the flower is very sharp.

Thanks
AOL

 
AntOliv,

Individual tastes and aesthetics aside, the one thing which caught my eye (on my monitor) was the dark outline especially on the left side of the flower. I do sometimes sharpen aggressively if I have a troublesome photo intended to be displayed at low resolution on say a website where the image is more of a record and less of an artistic statement. Arbitrarily, for my personal shooting I tend to restrict myself to .5 or less if any sharpening seems needed (SPP setting).

It's a nice photo and doesn't (IMHO) really require much sharpening to make a pleasing presentation.

Kind regards,
--
Ed_S

http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires
 
Very interesting take on the image. I do prefer it, generally, to the original. Especially the saturation and exposure. However, there is a nagging depth issue.

I do agree, that often times if you have to ask, the answer is yes. But, in this instance, I think you are on the right path overall.

If I was to retake this photo, I would make it more of a macro - cropping out the background and dropping the DOF significantly. Alas, you have what you have.

If I were to edit this photo, I would marginally decrease the sharpening and aggressively crop the image. Lose the background. I believe the background is what makes the flower itself look oversharpened and out of place. Less background, less noticeable difference. Also, manipulate the exposure of the background and contrast to give it more "mood".

Something like this...dont quickly in PowerPoint - don't pick too much, a lot of focus was lost in PowerPoint.:-)

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B9bUe6V9C_0HOGFmZjViYmEtYjM3My00OTJiLWE2YmUtZmYxYTA3YWU5MWFl&hl=en
 
AntOliv said:
SD 14, 18-50 EX macro and SPP4.
Do you consider this oversharped?
(sorry if you saw this on other forum. I post it by mistake)

Thanks for looking.

AOL
Click to expand...
No!... :D

Could have a better DOF, but otherwise I like it as is.

Dave
 
A technique called local contrast does a great job giving texture to the petals. (Will post it if you wish.) Local contrast should be used in place of ordinary sharpening or with less ordinary sharpening.

Local contrast cannot be done in SPP so far as I know. See the description by Andy Blankertz for a technique with Picture Window Pro, a program I use on TIF files exported from SPP:
http://www.dl-c.com/...-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5234&post=27134#POST27134

There are simpler ways to do local contrast, but this method often produces stunning results.

(First saw the OP in Open Forum, then saw this thread with unsharpened image to work from.)
 
Charles2 said:
Image has local contrast applied at 40 percent strength. More strength makes the petals look over-textured to my eye; less strength reverts toward smooth petals, which in my opinion is simply a different aesthetic choice.

Trying agian to give the link to the discussion of local contrast:
http://www.dl-c.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5234&post=27134#POST27134



Click to expand...
I dislike your version, it's not at all to my "taste."

Look, what is "oversharpened" anyway?

Over sharpened is where physcial defects occur in the image. Short of that everything is a matter of taste. I like this shot because it meets my "taste." I don't "disagree" with those who don't like this shot, but if they don't, it's because it doesn;t meet their taste, not because it is, per se, oversharp. Where are the artifacts? The characteristic halos?

You can like, dislike or anything in between, but it's not "oversharpened."

Indeed, while there are some problems with this shot, being too sharp isn't one of them.

Dave
 
Hi,

a simple trick for sharpening: Trust yourself, your shot is great and very impressive. You made the blossom something different. There is enough ordinary blossoms around.

pedro
 
Chato,

I agree that the image is nice. But the oversharpening is clear even at this small size. Between the flower and the green leaf, there are halos along the edge of the petal. The white edge highlight on the right is also much more pronounced.

Once again, the key to sharpening is to do it just the point where it is not yet visible. I can guarantee that the original image in print will look pretty rough. But a little less, and it will look great especially if the color scheme and general ambiance is maintained.
Chato said:
Charles2 said:
Image has local contrast applied at 40 percent strength. More strength makes the petals look over-textured to my eye; less strength reverts toward smooth petals, which in my opinion is simply a different aesthetic choice.

Trying agian to give the link to the discussion of local contrast:
http://www.dl-c.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=5234&post=27134#POST27134



Click to expand...
I dislike your version, it's not at all to my "taste."

Look, what is "oversharpened" anyway?

Over sharpened is where physcial defects occur in the image. Short of that everything is a matter of taste. I like this shot because it meets my "taste." I don't "disagree" with those who don't like this shot, but if they don't, it's because it doesn;t meet their taste, not because it is, per se, oversharp. Where are the artifacts? The characteristic halos?

You can like, dislike or anything in between, but it's not "oversharpened."

Indeed, while there are some problems with this shot, being too sharp isn't one of them.

Dave
Click to expand...
--
Laurence

Never look down to test the ground before taking your
next step; only he who keeps his eye fixed on the far
horizon will find the right road.

Dag Hammarskjold

http://www.pbase.com/lmatson/root
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/root
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/dp1
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd14
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd10
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/sigma/sd9
 
Laurence Matson said:
Chato,

I agree that the image is nice. But the oversharpening is clear even at this small size. Between the flower and the green leaf, there are halos along the edge of the petal. The white edge highlight on the right is also much more pronounced.

Once again, the key to sharpening is to do it just the point where it is not yet visible. I can guarantee that the original image in print will look pretty rough. But a little less, and it will look great especially if the color scheme and general ambiance is maintained.
Click to expand...
Are we talking about the original image? If so I simply don't see what you see. Maybe my eyes are shot?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top