How sharp must it be

[lilBuddha]

Before I got on DPR, I didn't even know that behaviors such as pixel peeping existed. When reviewers and many DPRites say sharp they mean pixel peeper sharp.

I don't think so. Sharp is sharp and typically a measured parameter that includes where in the field, how much and at which apertures. People around here generally are referring to that. "Pixel peeping" sharp is meaningless, generally not a thing.

I don't do that behavior so my definition of sharp is not exactly the same.

There is the camp around there who think that viewing / processing your images at 100% is somehow bad. Don't listen to them. It's very useful as one of many techniques for producing good results.

The problem isn’t the people who view viewing at 100% as a tool. The problem is those who view pixel peeping as the main criterion.

I still haven't met those people. I think they only exist in arguments.

People can like what they like, but an image viewed at intended size at the intended distance is the parameter that matters.

Intended is irrelevant. But expecting an image at 100% to be flawless is also unrealistic. In galleries, I view any one image at various distances, often close in. I'm not sure it should matter what was intended.

Because that is all that the photographer can control for, even if imperfectly.

Yes, but has little to do with how it's appreciated or consumed, like all art, it takes its own path.

But I can say that viewing enlargements of 4x5 images really sparked my enthusiasm as a very sharp image

The level at which the importance of sharpness as a criterion in itself has become because of digital viewing is weird. Seriously weird. Not saying that weird is bad. I am a fairly odd person, so that is not a value judgement I make.

We've always cared about sharpness, lens reviews have always contained this information. This is nothing new.

I will grant you that digital has brought us a whole new level of sharpness and perhaps that has brought awakened a latent expectation of perfection.

But most people view images as presented. Outside of reviews and particular clients, only odd corners of the internet like this one view images with a magnifying glass.

We've always used magnification - used loupes when focusing on 4x5, 8x10 and medium format, used loupes when focusing in the darkroom, used loupes after receiving a batch of developed sheet film etc. We used to shoot product photos with early digital backs and scan backs and immediately bring it up at 100% on the screen to check proper focus and sharpness in all the right places.

This isn't the stuff of odd corners of the internet, it's the realm of photographers who are striving for the best they can get - as they always have.

I disagree. Whilst all you wrote is true, it is also true that sharpness is its own thing beyond that. DPR is full of supporting commentary.

I can be convinced, show me.

Right. Like I am supposed to go through every thread to find examples?

 

[stevo23]

Before I got on DPR, I didn't even know that behaviors such as pixel peeping existed. When reviewers and many DPRites say sharp they mean pixel peeper sharp.

I don't think so. Sharp is sharp and typically a measured parameter that includes where in the field, how much and at which apertures. People around here generally are referring to that. "Pixel peeping" sharp is meaningless, generally not a thing.

I don't do that behavior so my definition of sharp is not exactly the same.

There is the camp around there who think that viewing / processing your images at 100% is somehow bad. Don't listen to them. It's very useful as one of many techniques for producing good results.

The problem isn’t the people who view viewing at 100% as a tool. The problem is those who view pixel peeping as the main criterion.

I still haven't met those people. I think they only exist in arguments.

People can like what they like, but an image viewed at intended size at the intended distance is the parameter that matters.

Intended is irrelevant. But expecting an image at 100% to be flawless is also unrealistic. In galleries, I view any one image at various distances, often close in. I'm not sure it should matter what was intended.

Because that is all that the photographer can control for, even if imperfectly.

Yes, but has little to do with how it's appreciated or consumed, like all art, it takes its own path.

But I can say that viewing enlargements of 4x5 images really sparked my enthusiasm as a very sharp image

The level at which the importance of sharpness as a criterion in itself has become because of digital viewing is weird. Seriously weird. Not saying that weird is bad. I am a fairly odd person, so that is not a value judgement I make.

We've always cared about sharpness, lens reviews have always contained this information. This is nothing new.

I will grant you that digital has brought us a whole new level of sharpness and perhaps that has brought awakened a latent expectation of perfection.

But most people view images as presented. Outside of reviews and particular clients, only odd corners of the internet like this one view images with a magnifying glass.

We've always used magnification - used loupes when focusing on 4x5, 8x10 and medium format, used loupes when focusing in the darkroom, used loupes after receiving a batch of developed sheet film etc. We used to shoot product photos with early digital backs and scan backs and immediately bring it up at 100% on the screen to check proper focus and sharpness in all the right places.

This isn't the stuff of odd corners of the internet, it's the realm of photographers who are striving for the best they can get - as they always have.

I disagree. Whilst all you wrote is true, it is also true that sharpness is its own thing beyond that. DPR is full of supporting commentary.

I can be convinced, show me.

Right. Like I am supposed to go through every thread to find examples?

If DPR is full of supporting commentary, you'll have no problem finding a thread that supports your assertion tout de suite. Shouldn't take more than a couple of days before one pops up. Ping me when you've got one.

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

Sharpness is the basics of a lens in 2020. With MILC AF crappy lenses are more exaggerated.

And yes lenses should be sharp wide Open especially for the prices they want nowadays. No excuses what so ever.

There is no "should" about it.

It's a fact of nature (or physics or however you want to define it) that all simple lenses suffer aberrations of various kinds and that they are worse further from the axis. These aberrations can be reduced ("corrected") by using a series of different simple lenses ("elements")of various shapes and/or glasses.

It is impossible to correct everything perfectly, so unless the lens has a small maximum aperture (to avoid using the area of glass remote from the axis) there will always be relative softness wide open. This is not an excuse - it is a simple explanation of reality.

Using multiple elements with different glass and shapes becomes increasingly expensive as aberrations are corrected more strongly; and the increase becomes steeper the more that is done. Expensive lenses are expensive because of this; they are at the limit of what is reasonably possible.

 

[ttran88]

Sharpness is the basics of a lens in 2020. With MILC AF crappy lenses are more exaggerated.

And yes lenses should be sharp wide Open especially for the prices they want nowadays. No excuses what so ever.

There is no "should" about it.

It's a fact of nature (or physics or however you want to define it) that all simple lenses suffer aberrations of various kinds and that they are worse further from the axis. These aberrations can be reduced ("corrected") by using a series of different simple lenses ("elements")of various shapes and/or glasses.

It is impossible to correct everything perfectly, so unless the lens has a small maximum aperture (to avoid using the area of glass remote from the axis) there will always be relative softness wide open. This is not an excuse - it is a simple explanation of reality.

Using multiple elements with different glass and shapes becomes increasingly expensive as aberrations are corrected more strongly; and the increase becomes steeper the more that is done. Expensive lenses are expensive because of this; they are at the limit of what is reasonably possible.

Make all the excuses you want but it's 2020 and if a lens isn't sharp wide open get it out of here. A buyer paying top dollars don't need to know how "difficult" it is to do, either show up or go home. Simple.

 

[stevo23]

Sharpness is the basics of a lens in 2020. With MILC AF crappy lenses are more exaggerated.

And yes lenses should be sharp wide Open especially for the prices they want nowadays. No excuses what so ever.

There is no "should" about it.

It's a fact of nature (or physics or however you want to define it) that all simple lenses suffer aberrations of various kinds and that they are worse further from the axis. These aberrations can be reduced ("corrected") by using a series of different simple lenses ("elements")of various shapes and/or glasses.

It is impossible to correct everything perfectly, so unless the lens has a small maximum aperture (to avoid using the area of glass remote from the axis) there will always be relative softness wide open. This is not an excuse - it is a simple explanation of reality.

Using multiple elements with different glass and shapes becomes increasingly expensive as aberrations are corrected more strongly; and the increase becomes steeper the more that is done. Expensive lenses are expensive because of this; they are at the limit of what is reasonably possible.

Make all the excuses you want but it's 2020 and if a lens isn't sharp wide open get it out of here. A buyer paying top dollars don't need to know how "difficult" it is to do, either show up or go home. Simple.

Say it all you want, but only a very select few lenses actually "show up" as you put it. And you will pay for it. Buyers paying top dollar know very well how difficult it is simply because it's so difficult to find a lens like this.

Expecting that we can conquer everything because its 2020 is a bit ambitious. There are just some things that have been harder than others and remain so.

 

[Smaug01]

People are getting rude. Good points made on each side.