How sharp must it be

[chipmaster]

How sharp? My goodness. Every review is the same. Not sharp enouph at f2.8. Or f1.4 or wide open.

Don't care how sharp if it doesn't capture the moment, first is it a good photography, second is it in focus or got motion blur, 3rd is it well exposed and of good composition, lastly could it have been better with a sharper lens. Funny if you get first one really right the 2nd and 3rd and last point fall off exponentially in importance.

 

[markyboy81]

How sharp? My goodness. Every review is the same. Not sharp enouph at f2.8. Or f1.4 or wide open.

Are you questioning the Cult of the Ultra-Sharp Lens?

I think it's a conspiracy, lens designers used to prioritize 3D pop, rendering, bokeh etc, but now it's only sharpness.

If you use a slow shutter to add motion blur, is it 4D pop?

Of course, the fourth dimension is time, so adding more time into the photo increases the 4D pop.

Does this mean using a longer shutter speed, or making sure there is a clock or two in the background?

 

[Photodog2]

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 do that behavior so my definition of sharp is not exactly the same.

 

[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.

 

[Brian Kimball]

[...]

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.

Amen.

It's so fascinating to see "pixel peeping" used almost 100% derogatorily and dismissively. I haven't seen a single thoughtful or nuanced argument against:

• checking focus while viewing at 100% or more
• judging sharpening results while viewing at 100% or more
• performing noise reduction while viewing at 100% more
• careful brushing & masking while viewing at 100% or more
• simply enjoying one aspect of your image while viewing at 100% or more

Note that last point-- it's not mutually exclusive with enjoying the entire image as a whole. Especially when the photographer is emotionally connected with the subject, it's entirely possible to love the whole image and love the details in it. There is nothing wrong with that.

I think there's just a certain segment of the population that lacks both an attention span and attention to detail, and hates any process that requires them, and they will do everything they can to mock those who are happy to pay attention to the details and enjoy doing so.

 

[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.
People can like what they like, but an image viewed at intended size at the intended distance is the parameter that matters.
Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

 

[Brian Kimball]

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.

Why is that a problem if that is their personal "main criterion"? How does that hurt you?

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

This statement is contradictory. Who are you to tell others how to view photos?

Intended size and distance matter only to the photographer. Once a photo is displayed you can't police how it's viewed, how it's enjoyed, how it's critiqued, or how it's discussed. But it sure sounds like you want to!

"HEY! YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WRONG!"

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

Measured MTF50 is not objective enough for you?

 

[BrownieVet]

Re: How sharp must it be

How sharp? My goodness. Every review is the same. Not sharp enouph at f2.8. Or f1.4 or wide open.

Ever heard the saying: LIIGITIMATUM NON CARURANDUM"?

 

[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.

Why is that a problem if that is their personal "main criterion"? How does that hurt you?

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

This statement is contradictory. Who are you to tell others how to view photos?

Intended size and distance matter only to the photographer. Once a photo is displayed you can't police how it's viewed, how it's enjoyed, how it's critiqued, or how it's discussed. But it sure sounds like you want to!

"HEY! YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WRONG!"

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

Measured MTF50 is not objective enough for you?

What someone wants for their own images is their own business. What someone thinks of other people’s images is their own business.
It is when they project that subjective value as an objective one that it goes off the rails.
And it is those that do this that cause the consternation on these forums.

 

[Brian Kimball]

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.

Why is that a problem if that is their personal "main criterion"? How does that hurt you?

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

This statement is contradictory. Who are you to tell others how to view photos?

Intended size and distance matter only to the photographer. Once a photo is displayed you can't police how it's viewed, how it's enjoyed, how it's critiqued, or how it's discussed. But it sure sounds like you want to!

"HEY! YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WRONG!"

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

Measured MTF50 is not objective enough for you?

What someone wants for their own images is their own business. What someone thinks of other people’s images is their own business.
It is when they project that subjective value as an objective one that it goes off the rails.
And it is those that do this that cause the consternation on these forums.

Agreed, it's a tricky subject, especially when sharpness can be defined objectively, but whether or not a marginal improvement in sharpness is important is totally subjective and up to each individual photographer.

I think the value of sharpness and its diminishing returns is a great discussion to have. It's just a bummer when it instantly devolves into one-sided name-calling and dismissiveness.

 

[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.

Why is that a problem if that is their personal "main criterion"? How does that hurt you?

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

This statement is contradictory. Who are you to tell others how to view photos?

Intended size and distance matter only to the photographer. Once a photo is displayed you can't police how it's viewed, how it's enjoyed, how it's critiqued, or how it's discussed. But it sure sounds like you want to!

"HEY! YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WRONG!"

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

Measured MTF50 is not objective enough for you?

What someone wants for their own images is their own business. What someone thinks of other people’s images is their own business.
It is when they project that subjective value as an objective one that it goes off the rails.
And it is those that do this that cause the consternation on these forums.

Agreed, it's a tricky subject, especially when sharpness can be defined objectively, but whether or not a marginal improvement in sharpness is important is totally subjective and up to each individual photographer.

I think the value of sharpness and its diminishing returns is a great discussion to have. It's just a bummer when it instantly devolves into one-sided name-calling and dismissiveness.

ISTM, this is inevitable because this more of a gear forum than a photography one and because subjective criteria cannot be measured.
That and this is the internet.

 

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

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

 

[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.

Why is that a problem if that is their personal "main criterion"? How does that hurt you?

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

This statement is contradictory. Who are you to tell others how to view photos?

Intended size and distance matter only to the photographer. Once a photo is displayed you can't police how it's viewed, how it's enjoyed, how it's critiqued, or how it's discussed. But it sure sounds like you want to!

"HEY! YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WRONG!"

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

Measured MTF50 is not objective enough for you?

What someone wants for their own images is their own business. What someone thinks of other people’s images is their own business.
It is when they project that subjective value as an objective one that it goes off the rails.
And it is those that do this that cause the consternation on these forums.

If you can find someone who claims that everyone should make 100% viewing the main criteria, please share the link here.

 

[Jimmy Simpleton]

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.

Why is that a problem if that is their personal "main criterion"? How does that hurt you?

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

This statement is contradictory. Who are you to tell others how to view photos?

Intended size and distance matter only to the photographer. Once a photo is displayed you can't police how it's viewed, how it's enjoyed, how it's critiqued, or how it's discussed. But it sure sounds like you want to!

"HEY! YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT WRONG!"

Also understanding that sharpness is not an objective criterion in regards to any given image.

Measured MTF50 is not objective enough for you?

What someone wants for their own images is their own business. What someone thinks of other people’s images is their own business.
It is when they project that subjective value as an objective one that it goes off the rails.
And it is those that do this that cause the consternation on these forums.

Oh yes, that is why all images should be accompanied by an exhaustive list of "what someone [the photographer] wants for their own images." That way, viewers can be sure to meticulously check that list before viewing and commenting to avoid causing any consternation.

 

[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.

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[DenWil]

How sharp? My goodness. Every review is the same. Not sharp enouph at f2.8. Or f1.4 or wide open.

How did your post on what is sharp enough as far as lens rendering content morph into a discussion about pixel peeping and digitally sharpening an image in post?

The innate sharpness a lens has and how it can affect rendering has absolutely nothing to do with digitally sharpening files at specific or every stage of conversion and post processing.

I have numerous lenses from before digital , before pixel peeping and you know they're sharp simply looking at the film on a light table with a loup.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.