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

 

[charley5]

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

Ha ha.

 

[charley5]

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

Thanks for your input, Gato. Very good points!

 

[charley5]

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

Beautifully stated, Aaron. Thank you!

 

[charley5]

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?

Ok. Thanks. I'll check that out.

-Charles

 

[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.

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...

It shouldn't be too difficult to find a modern AF lens with less than perfect sharpness wide open. The Canon EF 135/2.8 SF comes to mind.

 

[Aaron801]

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.

No doubt, I had a photography teacher say the same thing, "there's no such thing as cheating in photography!"

Not only that but your modification here was subtle enough to not draw attention to itself...

 

[Trevor Carpenter]

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

Nothing wrong with what you are doing IMHO. But why would you want to when the first picture is so much better than the second.

--

Albums here https://trevorc28a.wixsite.com/trevspics
and 2021 birds here

Birds 2021 part 4 · Aug 10 – Sep 28, 2021 📸

Shared album · Tap to view!

photos.app.goo.gl

Birds 2021 part 2 · Mar 17 – May 25, 2021 📸

Shared album · Tap to view!

photos.app.goo.gl

Birds 2021 part 3 · May 27 – Aug 13, 2021 📸

Shared album · Tap to view!

photos.app.goo.gl

Birds 2021 · Feb 23 – Apr 9, 2021 📸

Shared album · Tap to view!

photos.app.goo.gl

 

[JasonTheBirder]

In my opinion if it's obvious then it's hideous. But your sharpening here was quite mild.

 

[Kokopelli_Rocks]

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...

I generally am in the Ansel Adams philosophy on creating the final product. Not that my images compare to Ansel Adams. Just I don't have problems using moden tools to create the image I want to create. I have done a lot of portraits and have used Portrait Professional to clean up images and sharpen eyes. I generally use a soft touch. I have seen over use that can turn a model into plastic.

For the OP my question would be on how you sell your portraits. If one of your selling points is the use of vintage gear to create a 'look', the post-processing might be an issue. If you are selling portraits with a vintage look I don't see any issue.

 

[MarkAllen]

You already know the answer to your question. The reason you are asking it is to justify your actions.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

You already know the answer to your question. The reason you are asking it is to justify your actions.

I'm not sure that's true...I mean I think we should give the OP the benefit of the doubt. I remember looking back at some of my early editing and wondering what the heck I was thinking. So maybe it's nice to have another perspective once and a while, even if you're convinced of it at the time.

 

[charley5]

You already know the answer to your question. The reason you are asking it is to justify your actions.

You are either trying to be enigmatic or annoying. Neither concern me.

 

[charley5]

You already know the answer to your question. The reason you are asking it is to justify your actions.

I'm not sure that's true...I mean I think we should give the OP the benefit of the doubt. I remember looking back at some of my early editing and wondering what the heck I was thinking. So maybe it's nice to have another perspective once and a while, even if you're convinced of it at the time.

Jason, I appreciate your response, and you are absolutely right. I am completely self-taught, and I occasionally like to get some guidance as to what direction my photography should take. Being a perfectionist I sometimes need a sense of perspective. Thanks again!

-Charles

 

[charley5]

In my opinion if it's obvious then it's hideous. But your sharpening here was quite mild.

Thank you, Jason. Yes, I often see people overdoing something they wish to correct, unfortunately drawing attention to it even more. So I appreciate your encouragement.

-Charles

 

[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

Nothing wrong with what you are doing IMHO. But why would you want to when the first picture is so much better than the second.

Thanks, Trevor. Can you explain to me why you think so? The only difference between the second and first pictures is that I sharpened the eyes in the second. I really would like to know your thoughts.

-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.

No doubt, I had a photography teacher say the same thing, "there's no such thing as cheating in photography!"

Not only that but your modification here was subtle enough to not draw attention to itself...

Fantastic. Thanks, Aaron. I sometimes need an objective second pair of eyes to clarify the situation. I think we all do!

-Charles

 

[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.

Nope. My concern is based on my art form being unique, as I feel my style is, but sometimes my perfectionist nature clashes with my art. That's why I need an objective opinion.

-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.

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...

It shouldn't be too difficult to find a modern AF lens with less than perfect sharpness wide open. The Canon EF 135/2.8 SF comes to mind.

Possibly. Actually I have found the CZ Biotar 75mm and the Helios 40 85mm to be the only two lenses thus far that get me the results I am looking for. Frankly, there are as many challenges as perks with using such lenses, but I consider what i do an art so I am ready to put up with such limitations. I tried other manual lenses of that focal length but they seem to fall short.

 

[tony field]

Although it with this may not be applicable to your needs, I found when learning Photoshop I quickly found that editing in multiple layers allowed me to revisit images and turn off or modify layers as my understanding of the image developed over time. Particularly this seems to be applicable to portraits and how they should be rendered.

No editing is cheating in any sense

 

[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...

I generally am in the Ansel Adams philosophy on creating the final product. Not that my images compare to Ansel Adams. Just I don't have problems using moden tools to create the image I want to create. I have done a lot of portraits and have used Portrait Professional to clean up images and sharpen eyes. I generally use a soft touch. I have seen over use that can turn a model into plastic.

For the OP my question would be on how you sell your portraits. If one of your selling points is the use of vintage gear to create a 'look', the post-processing might be an issue. If you are selling portraits with a vintage look I don't see any issue.

Thanks. It is not just any vintage lens that yields the results I am looking for, but the CZ Biotar 75mm and the Helios 40 85mm. So I am not touting all vintage lenses. By the way, I am not selling anything. I am just presenting my images as my artistic form. And they are not for everybody's taste.

-Charles