Reading mode: Light Dark

Wanna share your sharpest shot?? Edge sharpness plus contrast & colour ;-)

Go to last post
D

deednets

Forum Pro
Messages
15,736
Solutions
1
Reaction score
13,592
Location
NZ
Now and again I peruse other fora and came across the Matt Granger video using a mid-format camera in Bhutan. He kindly left some images in RAW format for everyone to have a (private I assume??) play with.


So I did just that and processed the files and found A LOT OF PIXELS ... but in terms of sharpness I wasn't so sure I couldn't do as well with an APS-C camera.

Should this find any interest, I will make a start here, a little portrait shot with the X-T1 and the 56/1.2



dd960eb739484cf5bf2dcd6eecf95a8a.jpg

100% crop (hopefully this won't get butchered by the upload engine??):



d65780ace1b74699bf3c035f25046f29.jpg

And here is one taken with the X-T20 - to share one taken with the newer sensor and the 90/2:



eb0593553bac472d9f5a0325fceb4630.jpg

I don't know about you guys but I have to admit that I am a sucker for sharpness.

Ah yes, and Greg - should you read this - you have so much gear, you should have no probs showing off maybe ONE shot?? The sharpest?? I would really be interested in your pick of lens/camera ...

Note that most of my photos are below the above posted ones, but I can get that "quality" (should need to be qualified here, but will leave it at that) if I put an effort into it.

Deed
 
Sharpness vs depth of field is tricky - you get more depth of field "for free" with smaller formats. But you still need to be creative and that means isolating sharp subjects from out of focus backgrounds - medium format and larger can do this!

Here are a couple of yesterday's sharp images.





Its the eyelashes that you notice...



Really I would have liked better isolation of a single sharp "ear" of grain, but its certainly sharp.

Sophie
 

Attachments

  • 3648653.jpg
    3648653.jpg
    458.1 KB · Views: 0
  • 3648652.jpg
    3648652.jpg
    415 KB · Views: 0
You have suddenly crossed swords with Deednets!! Watch out for the moderator's comment! However, I feel his shot is as perfectly sharpened as natural looking for woman's headshot.
 
Like this, you mean?

9da44ba7cb3340ee9422f50899cf070c.jpg
 
kaka12moto said:
You have suddenly crossed swords with Deednets!! Watch out for the moderator's comment! However, I feel his shot is as perfectly sharpened as natural looking for woman's headshot.
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, touraine will get a lot of thumbs ups for his ridiculing comment. My OP was about sharpness and nothing else.

He makes this personal. I have no idea who this guy is, but his comments have nothing to do with the object of my post so I can only suggest it was intentional trolling.

I will not wait for his response but put him on ignore as my post was a friendly expression of interest in "sharpness".

Too old for this, sorry! *yawn*

Deed
 
Last edited:
I am confused. You are showing cropped shots? You want edge sharpness?

5421d7c87e5b49d39bc484c15c7c96ad.jpg

This is nothing special but the only stuff out of focus is due to dof. Sorry, no colour.
 
Last edited:
K29er said:
I am confused. You are showing cropped shots? You want edge sharpness?

5421d7c87e5b49d39bc484c15c7c96ad.jpg

This is nothing special but the only stuff out of focus is due to dof. Sorry, no colour.
Click to expand...
No, there only was a 100% crop taken out of the first shot as I wanted to leave the shot at a lower than full size res.

Is that your car?? ;-)

Deed
 
deednets said:
K29er said:
I am confused. You are showing cropped shots? You want edge sharpness?

5421d7c87e5b49d39bc484c15c7c96ad.jpg

This is nothing special but the only stuff out of focus is due to dof. Sorry, no colour.
Click to expand...
No, there only was a 100% crop taken out of the first shot as I wanted to leave the shot at a lower than full size res.

Is that your car?? ;-)

Deed
Click to expand...
Sorry I'm still confused. The first full head shot is at a lower resolution but you wanted to show sharpness and contrast? Then the 100% crop has around the same resolution? To show sharpness? I agree they are sharp but I thought the idea was to use the right lens to get dof and fill the frame, keeping all the detail. Just trying to learn as there are a amazing shots in this thread but the only way I can do the same is to place the subject in the center of the photo, then heavy crop and place the subject where I want to make it look composed. Sure a crop of a ff is going to be better, is that the reason for ff?
 
deednets said:
kaka12moto said:
You have suddenly crossed swords with Deednets!! Watch out for the moderator's comment! However, I feel his shot is as perfectly sharpened as natural looking for woman's headshot.
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, touraine will get a lot of thumbs ups for his ridiculing comment. My OP was about sharpness and nothing else.

He makes this personal. I have no idea who this guy is, but his comments have nothing to do with the object of my post so I can only suggest it was intentional trolling.

I will not wait for his response but put him on ignore as my post was a friendly expression of interest in "sharpness".

Too old for this, sorry! *yawn*

Deed
Click to expand...
It's a boy's with toys thread. It is as far removed from photography/art as you could possibly get.
 
Touraine said:
deednets said:
kaka12moto said:
You have suddenly crossed swords with Deednets!! Watch out for the moderator's comment! However, I feel his shot is as perfectly sharpened as natural looking for woman's headshot.
Click to expand...
If I am not mistaken, touraine will get a lot of thumbs ups for his ridiculing comment. My OP was about sharpness and nothing else.

He makes this personal. I have no idea who this guy is, but his comments have nothing to do with the object of my post so I can only suggest it was intentional trolling.

I will not wait for his response but put him on ignore as my post was a friendly expression of interest in "sharpness".

Too old for this, sorry! *yawn*

Deed
Click to expand...
It's a boy's with toys thread. It is as far removed from photography/art as you could possibly get.
Click to expand...
“Art is not what you see, but what you make others see.”

Degas
 
Touraine said:
No, I hate sharp. I detest sharp. I really don't like sharp.

You have just demonstrated why 'sharpness' does not make a nice photo.

An unflattering sharp picture of a women's head. I bet she is well chuffed.
Click to expand...
The thread is clearly about sharpness. Why, if you dislike sharpness, did you even bother to open it let alone respond with an insulting reply.

From the evidence of your own posts and responses to threads discussing sharpness It's become quite obvious that you are incapable of producing a sharp image yourself and use this type of response as a cover.

Please describe the unflattering aspects you say the subject would object to. There are two ladies here who 100% disagree with you and would love such perfect skin and eyes - or maybe you didn't even view the image before making your childish comment.

Art is in the eye of the beholder/s and the vision of the creator. Rarely do they share the same vision. Which just goes to show what a load of BS so called art really is.

Vic
 
Vic Chapman said:
Touraine said:
No, I hate sharp. I detest sharp. I really don't like sharp.

You have just demonstrated why 'sharpness' does not make a nice photo.

An unflattering sharp picture of a women's head. I bet she is well chuffed.
Click to expand...
The thread is clearly about sharpness. Why, if you dislike sharpness, did you even bother to open it let alone respond with an insulting reply.

From the evidence of your own posts and responses to threads discussing sharpness It's become quite obvious that you are incapable of producing a sharp image yourself and use this type of response as a cover.

Please describe the unflattering aspects you say the subject would object to. There are two ladies here who 100% disagree with you and would love such perfect skin and eyes - or maybe you didn't even view the image before making your childish comment.

Art is in the eye of the beholder/s and the vision of the creator. Rarely do they share the same vision. Which just goes to show what a load of BS so called art really is.

Vic
Click to expand...
 
Hi Deed,

I had to think about this one - good images vary. I've chosen two that I reckon display excellent sharpness. Being me, one's a landscape - a wetland where I go walking and birding - and the other, of course, is a bird. Now the bird shot isn't strictly corner to corner sharp but the main subject does span most of the diagonal...... Apologies if I stepped slightly outside your rules, but it was a 300mm lens.

Regards, Rod

This was taken as a representative image of the wetland environment and no more than that. OTOH, it's sharp and the 23/1.4 has held corner to corner detail very well. (And that's in a system widely reputed not to do well with foliage). XT1, 23/1.4 @ f5.6 SOOC. I really like the 23/1.4 for landscapes. It has a more normal perspective than wider options like the 14 & 16mm lenses and for the same reason offers higher magnification than they do. It seems to hold detail that can be lost in the compression that goes on with UWAs to 'get everything in'.
This was taken as a representative image of the wetland environment and no more than that. OTOH, it's sharp and the 23/1.4 has held corner to corner detail very well. (And that's in a system widely reputed not to do well with foliage). XT1, 23/1.4 @ f5.6 SOOC. I really like the 23/1.4 for landscapes. It has a more normal perspective than wider options like the 14 & 16mm lenses and for the same reason offers higher magnification than they do. It seems to hold detail that can be lost in the compression that goes on with UWAs to 'get everything in'.

[ATTACH alt="And here's the birdie - posted before. XT1 with FD 300/4L (@f8 I think) also SOOC. Forget the EXIF FL. I'm impressed with the Canon FD 300/4L. It's the sharpest tele I've ever used. You can really see the material structure of the bird's bill and of the "bag" that holds caught fish underneath it. And you can see phenomenal feather detail on the head, throat and breast. No color-fringing on the high contrast boundaries either, which is rare from adapted film-era telephoto lenses."]1658128[/ATTACH]
And here's the birdie - posted before. XT1 with FD 300/4L (@f8 I think) also SOOC. Forget the EXIF FL. I'm impressed with the Canon FD 300/4L. It's the sharpest tele I've ever used. You can really see the material structure of the bird's bill and of the "bag" that holds caught fish underneath it. And you can see phenomenal feather detail on the head, throat and breast. No color-fringing on the high contrast boundaries either, which is rare from adapted film-era telephoto lenses.
 

Attachments

  • 31e5ff07acaa4c649ab9dc3b96dd8754.jpg
    31e5ff07acaa4c649ab9dc3b96dd8754.jpg
    9.4 MB · Views: 0
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