Reading mode: Light Dark

A Philosophical Discussion - When Is Sharpness Excessive?

Go to last post
landscaper1

landscaper1

Veteran Member
Messages
5,440
Solutions
3
Reaction score
3,855
Location
Alexandria, VA, US
Let's have a serious philosophical discussion about what amount of sharpening is enough and when is it too much? Who first decided the answer to that question and what was the basis for that standard?

Obviously, visible halos or sharpening artifacts are undesirable, but at what level of magnification? Is it reasonable to say sharpness is excessive if the image has to be magnified to or near Pixel Size (100%) or even greater before halos or artifacts become visible?

Can sharpness really be said to be excessive if no halos or artifacts are visible at the intended Print Size?

Is using computer monitor screens to determine excessive sharpness realistic when we all know that most (all?) printers are incapable of matching the acuity of high quality monitor screens? Or has serious photography now become for the purpose of transmitting images from computer to computer rather than in prints?

Photographers and non-photographers may have very different notions of how much sharpness is enough. Is it the responsibility of photographers to "educate" non-photographers about what amount of sharpness they should and should not like?

P.S. In a philosophical discussion there are no wrong answers, but one must explain his reasoning rather than merely declare it as if it were the last word on the subject.
 
The questions raised in the o.p. sound more like questions of technical aesthetics than of philosophical factors.

For me, the philosophical questions occur far in advance of technical concerns of halos and artifacts, in that I must decide whether or not my image's sharpness or softness will be an "accurate" representation of the original subject scene, and will it or will it not align with the viewer's expectations of "normal" photographic sharpness...?

"Accurate" is in quotes because, well, there's another philosophical question... just what does or does not constitute accuracy in photography?

Them-there questions be more like philosphy than that-there question of halos and artifacts....!!

Aaaaaaarrrr.....!!!
 
This is pretty much my limit





7ae64e7003b943d4b6408f9b26afedd4.jpg
 
CraigVMN said:
This is pretty much my limit

7ae64e7003b943d4b6408f9b26afedd4.jpg
Click to expand...
Hmmm.......

Looks more medical than philosophical.....

--
Thank You,
Chaplain Mark
-----
'Tis better to have a camera and not need one than to need a camera and not have one.
--------------
In pursuit of photographic excellence.
 
Chaplain Mark said:
The questions raised in the o.p. sound more like questions of technical aesthetics than of philosophical factors.

For me, the philosophical questions occur far in advance of technical concerns of halos and artifacts, in that I must decide whether or not my image's sharpness or softness will be an "accurate" representation of the original subject scene, and will it or will it not align with the viewer's expectations of "normal" photographic sharpness...?

"Accurate" is in quotes because, well, there's another philosophical question... just what does or does not constitute accuracy in photography?

Them-there questions be more like philosphy than that-there question of halos and artifacts....!!

Aaaaaaarrrr.....!!!
Click to expand...
"I must decide whether or not my image's sharpness or softness will be an "accurate" representation of the original subject scene"

Where is it written that artistic photography must accurately represent the scenes being photographed? That's a reasonable standard for a photojournalist, but not for a photo artist.
 
USM is a tool just like shadows or saturation etc, etc...., use it as you see fit for the image you have on the screen.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't., sometimes I completely over do it cause I like the effect.

There are no rules.

Cheers,

Terry.
 
landscaper1 said:
Chaplain Mark said:
The questions raised in the o.p. sound more like questions of technical aesthetics than of philosophical factors.

For me, the philosophical questions occur far in advance of technical concerns of halos and artifacts, in that I must decide whether or not my image's sharpness or softness will be an "accurate" representation of the original subject scene, and will it or will it not align with the viewer's expectations of "normal" photographic sharpness...?

"Accurate" is in quotes because, well, there's another philosophical question... just what does or does not constitute accuracy in photography?

Them-there questions be more like philosphy than that-there question of halos and artifacts....!!

Aaaaaaarrrr.....!!!
Click to expand...
"I must decide whether or not my image's sharpness or softness will be an "accurate" representation of the original subject scene"

Where is it written that artistic photography must accurately represent the scenes being photographed? That's a reasonable standard for a photojournalist, but not for a photo artist.
Click to expand...
 
As a Declarational Philosopher, I believe the "purfuit of happinefs" clause governs here. In every photo there is a sharpening level that makes me happy. Sometimes it is unattainable, which makes me unhappy, but that's life.

Life! Don't talk to me about life!
 
Last edited:
A photo has failed as a photo when you notice the technique more than the subject. That's my opinion and I am sticking with it. Photos are still about the image as far as I am concerned.
 
Boomanbb said:
A photo has failed as a photo when you notice the technique more than the subject. That's my opinion and I am sticking with it. Photos are still about the image as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Could that be because of the technique employed or because the viewer is primarily inclined to focus on technique and secondarily on the photo's subjective content?
 
landscaper1 said:
Boomanbb said:
A photo has failed as a photo when you notice the technique more than the subject. That's my opinion and I am sticking with it. Photos are still about the image as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Could that be because of the technique employed or because the viewer is primarily inclined to focus on technique and secondarily on the photo's subjective content?
Click to expand...
 
Boomanbb said:
landscaper1 said:
Boomanbb said:
A photo has failed as a photo when you notice the technique more than the subject. That's my opinion and I am sticking with it. Photos are still about the image as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Could that be because of the technique employed or because the viewer is primarily inclined to focus on technique and secondarily on the photo's subjective content?
Click to expand...
I cannot understand someone who is more concerned with techniques than subjects. Might as well just photograph brick walls, stacked batteries or cats.

Just kidding about the cats.
Click to expand...
Wow! The things you learn you never knew. How DO you stack cats?
 
landscaper1 said:
Boomanbb said:
landscaper1 said:
Boomanbb said:
A photo has failed as a photo when you notice the technique more than the subject. That's my opinion and I am sticking with it. Photos are still about the image as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Could that be because of the technique employed or because the viewer is primarily inclined to focus on technique and secondarily on the photo's subjective content?
Click to expand...
I cannot understand someone who is more concerned with techniques than subjects. Might as well just photograph brick walls, stacked batteries or cats.

Just kidding about the cats.
Click to expand...
Wow! The things you learn you never knew. How DO you stack cats?
Click to expand...
 
Boomanbb said:
landscaper1 said:
Wow! The things you learn you never knew. How DO you stack cats?
Click to expand...
It's not for the faint of heart!
Click to expand...
On the contrary it is very easy.

First of all herd a number of cats into individual boxes - this should be done blindfolded at night in a darkened room with no windows or lights.

Naturally you can only stack the boxes of cats that are alive in the box.........

However, I would suggest that sharpness, like any editing, becomes excessive when it is becomes visible and emerges from the final result rather than harmonising with all the other elements.
 
Boomanbb said:
landscaper1 said:
Boomanbb said:
landscaper1 said:
Boomanbb said:
A photo has failed as a photo when you notice the technique more than the subject. That's my opinion and I am sticking with it. Photos are still about the image as far as I am concerned.
Click to expand...
Could that be because of the technique employed or because the viewer is primarily inclined to focus on technique and secondarily on the photo's subjective content?
Click to expand...
I cannot understand someone who is more concerned with techniques than subjects. Might as well just photograph brick walls, stacked batteries or cats.

Just kidding about the cats.
Click to expand...
Wow! The things you learn you never knew. How DO you stack cats?
Click to expand...
It's not for the faint of heart!
Click to expand...
Stacked cats, the mind boggles...

As to the original question, it's a bit like Potter Stewart said, "I can't explain it but I know it when I see it". Which may inadvertently bring us back to stacked cats. But I digress...
 
landscaper1 said:
Let's have a serious philosophical discussion about what amount of sharpening is enough and when is it too much? Who first decided the answer to that question and what was the basis for that standard?

Obviously, visible halos or sharpening artifacts are undesirable, but at what level of magnification? Is it reasonable to say sharpness is excessive if the image has to be magnified to or near Pixel Size (100%) or even greater before halos or artifacts become visible?

Can sharpness really be said to be excessive if no halos or artifacts are visible at the intended Print Size?

Is using computer monitor screens to determine excessive sharpness realistic when we all know that most (all?) printers are incapable of matching the acuity of high quality monitor screens? Or has serious photography now become for the purpose of transmitting images from computer to computer rather than in prints?
Click to expand...
I think it is widely accepted that more sharpening is needed for prints than for screen viewing. Lightroom offers sharpening for screen or sharpening for prints as alternatives when exporting images.

If I sharpen images myself (rather than let LR to do it), I normally sharpen more aggressively for printing.

The problem is: how do you judge on screen what is sharp enough for a print? My technique is to sharpen to the level that is obviously too much when viewed on screen at 100%, but looks much better at 50%.

I think some people here are saying that your images look over sharpened when viewed at 100%, which is what I would expect for images sharpened for printing at 300ppi.

I should add that the ultimate test of whether the sharpening is right for printing is to make the print and look at it. Obvious, but if I don't say it, someone is sure to point out my 'mistake'.
 
Last edited:
Stacking is possible only with a split personality disorder cat -- a Schrödinger's cat. Once you layer your cats, you must blur the top cat, invert it (mind you, at this point it can turn into a top dog) and subtract it from the original. You'll be left with one sharp cat. It's not as deconvoluted as it seems.
 
Last edited:
landscaper1 said:
Let's have a serious philosophical discussion about what amount of sharpening is enough and when is it too much? Who first decided the answer to that question and what was the basis for that standard?

Obviously, visible halos or sharpening artifacts are undesirable, but at what level of magnification? Is it reasonable to say sharpness is excessive if the image has to be magnified to or near Pixel Size (100%) or even greater before halos or artifacts become visible?

Can sharpness really be said to be excessive if no halos or artifacts are visible at the intended Print Size?

Is using computer monitor screens to determine excessive sharpness realistic when we all know that most (all?) printers are incapable of matching the acuity of high quality monitor screens? Or has serious photography now become for the purpose of transmitting images from computer to computer rather than in prints?

Photographers and non-photographers may have very different notions of how much sharpness is enough. Is it the responsibility of photographers to "educate" non-photographers about what amount of sharpness they should and should not like?

P.S. In a philosophical discussion there are no wrong answers, but one must explain his reasoning rather than merely declare it as if it were the last word on the subject.
Click to expand...
Excessive sharpening is when you sharpen a sharp image.

An image might be sharp or soft to you, but not to someone else.

To avoid excessive sharpening, I sharpen only until I see sharpening artefacts appear.

Den
 
I heard that sharpness is a bourgeois concept.
---------------------------------------------------
Bringing to light, Exposing what is
---------------------------------------------------
 
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