Is sharpness in photography becoming a problem?

[Sebastian Cohen]

One might be forgiven for thinking the chosen subject or wording of, is purely click-bait. It is not. It is a serious question, which I think perhaps might antagonize several "sides" on the matter.

In the past, clearer images & more pixels have been what we all craved. We found digital lacking compared to film. We couldn't recompose post and cropping decreased perceived quality.

The question or questions, I should rather say, now are these. Is sharpness in photography now a problem? Do we need more sharpness? Does sharpness (more than we have) add any value to a still image? Does the sharpness now add any value? Is sharpness an artistic quality in itself?

I have been looking at many great images online lately. There seems to be an abundance of great work out there! It is truly amazing. But what I am left with afterwards is a sort of "sharpness fatigue". I liken it to listening to music on a pair of speakers with too much treble. I also find them, lifeless of sorts and uncomfortable or "unpleasing" to the eye.

Now, granted, this might be a case of the Blu-ray'itis many had initially. The movies just seemen too "clear". We didn't like it. But I would argue still images are different. And yes, there might be a higher need for sharpness/clarity in certain types of photography, say nature/animal/bird.

But....again. There is always an artistic element in those styles as well. And is sharpness or increased sharpness above what we have now adding anything?

"Everyone" jumped on compact discs. We "laughed" at those that clung to vinyl. Then "everyone" jumped on MP3's and both CD fans and vinyl-freaks laughed at those who liked mp3's. Then "everyone" started using digital music and everything else just sort of died away. Well, then hipsters brought back vinyl and "everyone" laughed at the hipsters.....

Then what happened?

Vinyl had a resurgence. CD's had a resurgence. Heck even the cassette had a resurgence! Some of us wanted a more "natural" feel to what we consumed. Some also didn't get joy from the ability to mass consume with such ease. It wasn't good for our heads.

Is digital photography at such a crossroads? Are we going to see a schism or are we actually in one?

We've had film-freaks for some time. But what I am noticing is, more "normal" people are using their parents camera's again. There are numerous articles about yuts blasting the "lifelessness" of digital, both in music and photography. That the ability to take unlimited numbers of sharp images does something negative to people. The really trendy ones are now are even using old digital cameras for the same reasons.

Today, nobody really needs better speakers or better sound systems to listen to music anymore. It can't get any clearer. Not really. (we might need better music to listen to, but that's an entirely different matter all together).

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

 

[Sebastian Cohen]

A side note of sorts....I am currently doing the yearly digital device clean-up. What I am personally noticing is that I am taking increasingly more photos. This has been a trend for some years now. And I feel like I am enjoying taking and viewing each of them less than I did before.

This is also part "healthy digital habits" territory. But I thought I was careful and better than I obviously am.

 

[Nielk Mike]

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

We are - and have been for some time. Marketing wants to make us buy more new gear so they claim faster, better gear. The truth is: The way we enjoy images (phone, laptop, PC, TV, print) is the limiting factor. For most every normal viewing situation cameras have been providing excellent quality for many years now.

Instead of competing for the highest MP count, or fastest AF that can detect the eyes of a fly, camera manufacturers should focus on the camera design and control layout.

 

[tapirek]

The question or questions, I should rather say, now are these. Is sharpness in photography now a problem? Do we need more sharpness? Does sharpness (more than we have) add any value to a still image? Does the sharpness now add any value? Is sharpness an artistic quality in itself?

The way I see this - you can always slightly blur an image that looks "too sharp" while it's much harder to sharpen a blurry image. So as long as an image is sharp because of sensor resolution and lens resolving ability it's ok. If we're talking about fake-ish, computational photography software over-sharpening I sometimes get on my phone then that is a problem for me.

But....again. There is always an artistic element in those styles as well. And is sharpness or increased sharpness above what we have now adding anything?

Depends on the image and how you see/present it. For a typical landscapes I think the more sharpness the better. For portraits - quite the opposite.

"Everyone" jumped on compact discs. We "laughed" at those that clung to vinyl. Then "everyone" jumped on MP3's and both CD fans and vinyl-freaks laughed at those who liked mp3's. Then "everyone" started using digital music and everything else just sort of died away. Well, then hipsters brought back vinyl and "everyone" laughed at the hipsters.....

Then what happened?

Vinyl had a resurgence. CD's had a resurgence. Heck even the cassette had a resurgence!

Yeah, but those are still within a niche and not even close to their dominant position from the past.

Some of us wanted a more "natural" feel to what we consumed. Some also didn't get joy from the ability to mass consume with such ease. It wasn't good for our heads.

Is digital photography at such a crossroads? Are we going to see a schism or are we actually in one?

Well, there is already the trend where some people go back to 2-3MPx old digital compacts and use them to get that 'digital nostalgia" feeling.

We've had film-freaks for some time. But what I am noticing is, more "normal" people are using their parents camera's again. There are numerous articles about yuts blasting the "lifelessness" of digital, both in music and photography. That the ability to take unlimited numbers of sharp images does something negative to people. The really trendy ones are now are even using old digital cameras for the same reasons.

Today, nobody really needs better speakers or better sound systems to listen to music anymore. It can't get any clearer. Not really. (we might need better music to listen to, but that's an entirely different matter all together).

Oh, I second that part about the need for better music!

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

I think we already were some time ago, probably around the time where 16MPx was standard for APS-C and 30MPx-ish for full frames.

 

[Chris Noble]

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

...but there's always another peak down the road. Don't worry about when or what.

Live in the moment, and enjoy the peak you're on now.

 

[JoshuaR]

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

My view is:

- There is no best way to take a picture, and there is no "we" in photography—there are just different photographers with different priorities.

- Sharpness is absolutely a priority for some photographers, because it's an aesthetic quality they care about. But it isn't a priority for other photographers, who prize different qualities in their images.

- Almost always, a properly focused image taken with a modern digital camera will be sharp enough for both kinds of photographers. There are photographers who still want more innovation in their digital cameras—but there's also a significant group of people for whom the technology is already more than sufficient.

I'm in the latter group: I've reached peak digital camera and am no longer on a sharpness quest. I own a Leica Q2, which is a "peak" digital camera with massive resolution and sharpness. But, like you, I often find photographs too sharp or digital. Perhaps as a result, I shoot a lot of film. It depends on the aesthetic I'm going for. I'm often very happy to make unsharp pictures, especially of people and especially on film.

Here are three very good posts you might enjoy from The Online Photographer: "Does Sharpness Matter? ," "Sharp Is Another Way Photographs Can Be," and "There's No Such Thing as Image Quality ."

 

[Howard V]

I think over sharpening is a more insidious problem. It’s most evident in default output from my iPhone.

I don’t believe the current sharpness of digital systems is a problem. Some photographic genres require as much sharpness and resolution as technology can supply. Over sharpening, over saturating and extreme tone mapping have all been around awhile. But that’s a new topic.

 

[Tom Axford]

I wouldn't say that sharpness has become a 'problem'.

However, the best modern cameras are capable of producing far sharper images than necessary for most purposes.

For this reason, I decided some years ago that I did not need that level of sharpness. For the past 12 years, I have been using Micro Four Thirds cameras almost exclusively.

MFT cameras are very frequently slated in these forums because they produce slightly less sharp images than full frame or medium format cameras (which have larger sensors). I don't really need that extra sharpness, so it makes no sense to choose a camera that is typically larger, heavier and more expensive.

 

[BertIverson]

I wouldn't say that sharpness has become a 'problem'.

However, the best modern cameras are capable of producing far sharper images than necessary for most purposes.

For this reason, I decided some years ago that I did not need that level of sharpness. For the past 12 years, I have been using Micro Four Thirds cameras almost exclusively.

MFT cameras are very frequently slated in these forums because they produce slightly less sharp images than full frame or medium format cameras (which have larger sensors). I don't really need that extra sharpness, so it makes no sense to choose a camera that is typically larger, heavier and more expensive.

Exactly Tom,

5 years ago, I made a similar decision with a 20 MP 1 inch camera with 24-600 mm lens. My viewing is on 8 MP monitor and 8 MP TV so why would I need more sharpness ! Maybe an occasional 2x digital crop for 1200mm eq (5 MP)

Bert

 

[Rene Gr]

Your analogy with speakers is good. The sharpness in the picture (the treble) needs to balanced by blurriness (bass). The eye is attracted to sharp areas automatically. If it finds no sharpness, it gets confused. I accept that only for images that want to confuse the viewer. Modern photography is not about sharpness. But it needs sharp subjects like every photography before.

Then, of course, there are genres like landscape photography where we wish everything to be sharp. But I am yet to meet an image I like where everything is blurry.

 

[D Cox]

It's not a problem: it's an option.

Some subjects, such as streets full of historic buildings or Rocky Mountain landscapes, are good as very high resolution images. Others, such as portraits, are not.

There are plenty of used lenses available so you can keep a few to suit different subjects. If you must have a new lens, Sigma's 45mm is deliberately designed to be soft wide open.

For extreme softness, I use an old two-element lens with chips and scratches.







Don

 

[Redhenry]

This is an idea which has interested me for some time, in both photography and music. When I was at college nearly 50 years ago, I had a suitcase-type record player. It sounded boxy and lacked detail so when I started earning some money I bought a hi-fi outfit and used to listen carefully to every aspect of the sound. As the years went by, the hi-fi was too bulky, as were the LPs and now I have a Bose smart speaker and all my music is on my phone and my iPad. I’m perfectly happy with the sound. It’s similar with photography. I’ve been through phases of being fussy about sharpness and I’ve had medium format cameras and 35mm SLR outfits but now, I’m happy with my iPhone or, occasionally, my RX100 and I don’t need my pictures to be any bigger than the iPad screen. I haven’t been aware of actually losing interest in sharpness or sound quality, but now, good enough is good enough. I take no notice of those posts where people agonise over whether lens A is sharper than lens B, as I think they treat image quality as a hobby in itself and that’s not my thing. I take the view now that unless the quality of an image or a recording is poor enough to detract from my enjoyment, it’s fine.

 

[jonas ar]

But aliasing is. This can be solved by having better sensor resolution.

 

[Ben Stonewall]

 

[Klaus dk]

The assertion “sharpness is a. bourgeois concept” is a quote from photgrapher Henri Cartier-Bresson.

Many photographers make fun of this, but if we interpret "bourgois" as "for the educated layman and not the trained photographer" it makes sense. You belong in that category, if the desire for sharpness isn't tempered by the understanding of what sharpness does to a photograph.

The trained photographer knows that sharpness is not particularly desirable in portraiture, while it's crucial when it comes to some kinds of wildlife. I'll also admit, that I find great joy in going very close to a large landscape print and be able to see what's going on in a small corner.

In favour of the increase in sensor resolution and lens resolving power is the power to crop in PP. I prefer to frame my portraits loosely and crop tightly in post, and that takes some Megapixels, and yet I almost newer sharpen my pictures. What I would like is even more advanced Eye-AF — more wants more

I agree that the display media is the limiting factor, but that is not new. When we had PAL or NTSC television, the general consensus was that you needed "professional headroom": the ability for the recording medium to deliver quality that surpassed the display medium.

But that was not always respected. Some recordings from the 1970'es are marred by severely oversaturated passages, where the recording engineers ignored their VU-meters and got some unpleasant distortion when they disregarded the characteristics of the recording tape medium.

In the opposite direction, Karajan has been rumored to transcribe some passages of music to a lower key, record them at a lower speed, and then play them faster when the record master was cut, because that would give a more lively impression. Those are rumours, but a lot of trickery was used in analog recording, and not just by George Martin and The Beatles.

As tapirek writes: you can always blur a photo you think is too sharp. But sharpening can easily lead to oversharpening with all the problems that brings.

The DPR test of Topaz Photo AI displays the shortcomings of AI assisted sharpening and noise removal. It is impossible to recreate missing data, and an educated guess can be right, but isn't always. If the only picture you have of a rabbit with feathers is a blurred and noisy photo, AI will probably guess it's a rabbit with rabbit fur, or a bird with wings on its head.

I'm nor qualified to judge whether we're at a peak, but I won't be surprised if the Megapixel race subsides and other features (like global shutter) will take precedence in the foreseeable future. Much is pointing that way already.

Good luck and good light.

 

[PAntunes]

No, Sharpness isn't becoming a problem at all.

Lack of talent is.

If you only follow great photographers, you won't be tired of the sharpness because you won't even notice it. You'll focus on the content of the image.

If you follow bad photographers you will only notice how sharp an image is because there isn't much else to look at in the photo. But that doesn't change with other older cameras. You'll basically be looking at the "filter" used on an uninspiring photo. We had that a few years ago with all the vsco filters or fuji film simulations. Bad photo->filter->master piece.

 

[demaio]

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

We are - and have been for some time. Marketing wants to make us buy more new gear so they claim faster, better gear. The truth is: The way we enjoy images (phone, laptop, PC, TV, print) is the limiting factor. For most every normal viewing situation cameras have been providing excellent quality for many years now.

Instead of competing for the highest MP count, or fastest AF that can detect the eyes of a fly, camera manufacturers should focus on the camera design and control layout.

No, not really. Camera manufacturers should focus on connectivity and AI features already implemented on smartphones. I want my next camera to be able to "stack" a number of images taken while handholding at night to eliminate noise and then to send it directly to Instagram. But we have to have a global shutter first.

 

[Rodger in Edmonton]

Ok - I'm gonna toss the Haggis in the fire:

Firts we should define our terms, if " peak" means the ability of digital cameras to capture the natural world in one shot as our brains can - there is a long way to go.

The sharpness craze i symptomatic of the central problem in all art and technical skills - a lack of knowledge not a lack of tools.

Like all technical skills, if we spend 1 /10 of the time studying the art & science vs the tools we do much much better. A person who puts to sea without knowledge of wind, waves and tides is quickly lost and at the mercy of forces they don't understand and cannot control, constantly needing help, unable to understand what is going on , unable to get to their destination, the sailor encounters endless problems. When experienced sailors tell him to study the wind, stars, waves, etc he rejects them and says he is captain of his own ship and nobody tells him how to sail despite his endless frustrations and inability to be a good sailor...his problem is he or she lacks knowledge and practiced skill based on said knowledge.

A PGA pro with cheap rentals and a putter will crush an amateur with 2 K sticks because he or she knows the art of golf and how to use the tools to interact with the physical world. The sailor, golfer and photographer are all united in the study of the craft combined with practice, practice, practice is the determinant factor NOT the tool.

Photography is the use of cameras to record light interacting with the physical world and as viewed by the human binocular visual system . The best results are achieved by applying proven methods that appeal to the human visual system.

The human visual system is not razor sharp across the field of view. To get central sharpness we have to give up peripheral sharpness - this is why we squint.

Images presented to the brain with razor sharpness across the entire field ( opposed to in focus beyond a hyperfocal) of view are tagged as odd the same way images with buildings that appear falling over from uncorrected verticals are immediately tagged as impossible.

Not surprisingly, the brain says " hey wait a minute - a building is not built with a 38 degree list ???- what is going on here ?? - error - error. Our brains correct the verticals.

It is the same with HDR in excess - all well and good but the human brain will say there is something very strange about these color s that does not match my files.

By Studying how light interacts with the different materials and shapes of the physical world, we can rapidly improve our art of photography and leave the Best - O - Rama at whatever software behind and let the camera do the talking.

Todays photography trends reminds me most of the 1980s:

ALL NEW ! Square grooved golf clubs were going to turn any weekend duffer into a pro without any study of golf or any instruction on how to swing a golf club or how a golf ball behaves when it interacts with the club.

This book will do more for a photographer than any software available .



--
Best Regards, Rodger
Save Lives - Be an Organ or Stem Cell Donor.
Quaecumque vera

 

[John Crowe]

Way too much too read.

For decades photographers moved to 120 and 4x5 and 8x10 film all to enhance sharpness and tonal transition.

Increased resolution will always help an image.

How much resolution one needs depends on the use of the image.

 

[tex]

So....the question I'm asking is basically, are we at peak digital photography?

We are - and have been for some time.

For the average photographer---and I don't mean enthusiast. Enthusiasts are a subset who want what they want for their own reasons.

Marketing wants to make us buy more new gear so they claim faster, better gear.

Naturally. And these days they are playing to the pro and enthusiast markets.

The truth is: The way we enjoy images (phone, laptop, PC, TV, print) is the limiting factor.

Almost---very true for most people. In my work, though, it's moving the archival digital files (always TIFFS) through the storage pipeline---pig in a python problem.

For most every normal viewing situation cameras have been providing excellent quality for many years now.

This is the key caveat. For technical photography we still have a ways to go to "future proof" the files. In my line of work, you don't want to have to shoot it again for a while. It's already a PITA and expensive (a team of people required) to re-photograph stuff that was shot on transparency film and then scanned, which was the first way to move it "forward". So having more MP and larger sensors is a boon, so upgrading still makes a great deal of sense.

Instead of competing for the highest MP count, or fastest AF that can detect the eyes of a fly, camera manufacturers should focus on the camera design and control layout.

Well, that's always true. Weird that it doesn't happen better than it does.