When do we need "sharpness"?

[janeenadamsmartin]

What editing software do you use to combine stills with video?

 

[itsallBb2me]

1. When we shave.

2. When we take an exam.

3. Chopping carrots.

4. When taking/processing photos that will be improved by maximum sharpness. Such photos inlude technical photos, architectural photos, landscapes, street, portraits and wildlife

Why not all photos? Because some photos can be improved by a judicious use of “blur”. (BTW, notice how, in photography, “sharp’ has a positive connotation while “blur” or “soft” is mainly negative.)

How can photos be improved by “blur”?

1. By creating or enhancing a mood.

2. By helping to tell a story.

3. By isolating and dramatizing the subject.

4. By flattering a portrait subject.

Which photos can be improved by a blur? Some architectural photos, landscapes, street, portraits and wildlife, depending on the intended use of the photo and the “artistic” intent of the photographer.

It’s also worth mentioning that there are really at least 2 kinds of blur in photography: initial blur and ultimate blur. The first is a product of the actual moment of releasing the shutter. It can be intentional or accidental. The second is the province of the developer/post-processor, and it can be successful or overcooked, depending largely on the taste and skill of the artist.

Below, I humbly offer (with some trepidation) 2 examples:

Golden hour mist on the Pacific coast, with a mood-enhancing blur

The Intruder, Here the selective blur emphasizes the arrival of the intruder and the concern of the bird on the perch - helping to tell the story.

 

[Guy Parsons]

What editing software do you use to combine stills with video?

No answer in a few hours so I thought that I would add my 2 cents worth.

Long a user of ProShow Gold which some time back packed up its tent and went away, so long term I need a replacement. Earlier searches in the forums kept coming up with this one but so far I have been ultra lazy and not bought it or tested it.

https://www.wnsoft.com/en/pte-av-studio/ $75 or $149 for the good and for the better versions. Free trial available and like most of these programs there can be a steep learning curve.

You can make shows as amazingly complex or simple in form as you like but the main trick is to make them watchable.

Such as with ProShow Gold I made travel slide show of Japan to send to a friend on a DVD. My mistake was the way I used the pan and zoom feature available when showing stills (makes a still seem a bit alive). I produced it on a 24" monitor and it looked OK for me, but when they looked at it on their 50" TV it had way too much movement and tended to make the viewers seek the sick bags.

Lesson, create or thoroughly test any show on the target sized viewing screen, sitting at the usual viewing distance.

 

[jalywol]

For me, sharpness is important for feather, hair, and fur detail, and eyes. Everything else? It's negotiable.

Edge to edge sharpness, which is something that lots of people seem to obsess over, is something I rarely even consider. I think that having lenses that do NOT have edge to edge sharpness can actually help emphasize, rather than distract from, the main subject of the image.

Even in outdoor insect shots, as long as the part of the insect and its perch that you WANT in focus IS in focus, the rest of the shot does not have to be. It's all about the composition as a whole.

-J

 

[itsallBb2me]

For me, sharpness is important for feather, hair, and fur detail, and eyes. Everything else? It's negotiable.

Edge to edge sharpness, which is something that lots of people seem to obsess over, is something I rarely even consider. I think that having lenses that do NOT have edge to edge sharpness can actually help emphasize, rather than distract from, the main subject of the image.

Even in outdoor insect shots, as long as the part of the insect and its perch that you WANT in focus IS in focus, the rest of the shot does not have to be. It's all about the composition as a whole.

-J

Thanks for staying On Topic.

 

[ivan bayu]

in my field or work, sharpness and perfectly on focus to the subjet(s) at the wide open is an obligation from the clients. well what do you expect for a video work... and also an unsharp and non focus sometimes become a demanded thing from them (for artistic purpose only tho) or a choice for a personal work (still an artistic choice)...

and those thing still a thing for all of my friends who work on photography field.

for iq, i dunno about you or the others, but personally i classifiying that as the combinations when the optical quality, staging (posing, framing, lightning, etc), and the artistic vision blended together nicely in one output (or several) after the post production has ended (end product, that also including sooc thingy).

 

[Messier Object]

I’m mainly interested in sharpness in two scenarios:

1. bird photography when I want to capture feather and facial details, especially when I’m limited in focal length and will resort to cropping. In such cases I’m generally concerned only with the centre sharpness - away from the centre, DoF is usually in play and lens sharpness is of little concern

2. Astro photography where I want star images to be as ‘tight’ as I can get - minimal flare and coma, and I want that performance right across the image field, so edge to edge performance is critical

Of course the optical performance of a lens is only effective if the lens is optimally focused on the subject AND the shutter speed is adequate to minimise motion blurring due to subject or camera motion.



Peter

 

[itsallBb2me]

What editing software do you use to combine stills with video?

No answer in a few hours

...'cuz it's Off Topic ..

so I thought that I would add my 2 cents worth.

Long a user of ProShow Gold which some time back packed up its tent and went away, so long term I need a replacement. Earlier searches in the forums kept coming up with this one but so far I have been ultra lazy and not bought it or tested it.

https://www.wnsoft.com/en/pte-av-studio/ $75 or $149 for the good and for the better versions. Free trial available and like most of these programs there can be a steep learning curve.

You can make shows as amazingly complex or simple in form as you like but the main trick is to make them watchable.

Such as with ProShow Gold I made travel slide show of Japan to send to a friend on a DVD. My mistake was the way I used the pan and zoom feature available when showing stills (makes a still seem a bit alive). I produced it on a 24" monitor and it looked OK for me, but when they looked at it on their 50" TV it had way too much movement and tended to make the viewers seek the sick bags.

Lesson, create or thoroughly test any show on the target sized viewing screen, sitting at the usual viewing distance.

 

[Brian Wadie]

can I thank you all for your interesting contributions, I'm always a bit nervous about starting a thread like this as it can descend into backbiting but this has been a real pleasure to follow, so far ;-)

 

[Henry Richardson]

"Sharpness" and "IQ" have a place but for me the real secret is being able to capture the images I want, when I want them

Decades ago I decided that most of the time worrying too much about IQ is a barrier to getting good photos. Years ago I wrote this about it:

Ramblings about Travel and Photography

http://www.bakubo.com/ramblings.html

In my opinion, a whole lot of people get way too obsessed about technical image quality (extreme sharpness, minimal distortion, minimal chromatic aberration, noise, etc.) and almost totally ignore making quality images. Personally, I also chuckle when I hear someone repeat the old saw about it being "all about the glass" or "all about the lenses." Spend time looking at photos over the past 50-100 years. Notice how many of those that are so wonderful are wonderful almost always because of subject, composition, timing, lighting, etc. and almost never because of the particular lens and whether it was marginally sharper, had slightly less distortion, and so on than another lens. Let the gearheads who do not actually take many photos worry themselves to death about that stuff. Take photos and you will get better. Obsess over gear and you will just end up being a gear fanatic. You just can't buy your way to good photos, but getting out there with the gear you have and taking photos, looking at other people's photos, and thinking will improve your vision and skills so that you can start taking good photos.

I do understand the attraction of quality gear, the aesthetics, the tactile feel, the perceived status conferred, and so on though. I just also understand that a lot of people get sidetracked in their hope to take photos they really like by getting on the gear track. Also, there are people who love cameras and gear as a hobby and are not all that interested in photography. Nothing wrong with that. It's your money and you can do with it what you want -- after you have paid all of your taxes to various government entities that demand the first cut, that is. All just my opinion, of course.

"I'm always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -- Henri Cartier-Bresson

View attachment 2957964

And I posted this on 2007-9-14:

IQ = Image Quality (strictly on the technical aspects of the sensor, etc. -- noise, noise reduction artifacts, sharpness, and so on) and it should not be confused with the much more important QI = Quality Image. To have high QI you need to be a good photographer.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/24828803

Worry more about QI (quality image) than IQ (image quality) and your photography will be much better. And this applies to lenses too.

And that reminds me of something that I posted in 2013. In 2013 I went to see an excellent photo exhibition titled:

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

I wrote about it at the time (note the part I made bold below):

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G15 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO/ASA 400 B&W film was fast. [And ISO/ASA 32 color slide film was high speed.]

Here is the exhibition info:

https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/2013/radical-transformation/

Does Sharpness Matter?

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2016/02/does-sharpness-matter.html

The following comment reminded me of what I wrote above:

Kenneth Tanaka: "Anecdotes: I have the wonderful privilege of often seeing some of the most renowned photographic prints in public and private collections, from Fox-Talbot to Burtynsky and Gursky. I doubt that half of them would pass muster as 'sharp' to an amateur photo forum crowd. A few years ago a major American museum photo collection deaccessioned a large Berenice Abbott print. To my eye it was lovely. But amidst the museum's many other Abbott prints this one, which was printed later, was a bit too good. Specifically, it was a bit too sharp and snappy to be representative of Abbott's body of work. It was clearly a later interpretation of the work."

A Few Further Complications In Lens Testing

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...a-few-more-complications-in-lens-testing.html

So what I'd recommend is not necessarily choosing your lenses based on lens tests at all. Information is good, and good information like Roger's is infinitely better, but even good information is still just data. A good lens is one that does what you want it to do and that you feel good about...based on how the pictures look. Keep looking until you get there—whether finding it comes early or late, and whether the process is easy or difficult, casual or fanatical, or expensive or cheap. Don't let other people tell you what you're supposed to like, yes; but be mindful not to let lens tests dictate to you what you're supposed to like either.

'Ultimate Image Quality': Is it Enticing to You?

https://theonlinephotographer.typep...lity-is-it-an-enticing-sales-pitch-t-you.html

--
Henry Richardson

http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Gnine]

can I thank you all for your interesting contributions, I'm always a bit nervous about starting a thread like this as it can descend into backbiting but this has been a real pleasure to follow, so far ;-)

Let me remedy that. I actually like softness, with smallish specific areas of sharpness. The sharp areas don't have to be bitingly sharp, as the contrast between the softer & sharper areas tend to compliment each other. IMO. For example..........

 

[Brian Wadie]

you will get no disagreement from me

 

[Brian Wadie]

my thoughts are not in disagreement, once I began to sell my images I realised that my customers were not the least interested in what I used to produce the image nor were they checking detail and sharpness at 100% .

They purchased those images which satisfied a need in them, one of my best and fastest sales was of a 6ft x 2ft canvas of a landscape. When I enquired how they had made the decision so quickly the wife explained that whilst they liked the subject the deciding factor was it was the right size to cover a botched attempt at plastering her husband had made and it was cheaper than hiring someone to remedy the mess he had made! ;-)

 

[glassoholic]

How long is a piece of string? Sharpness or not is a case by case thing... opinion and taste etc. Sometimes incredible and perfect detail make the most impression in a photo... other times sharpness is just not that important. It becomes even more of a debate when one wonders if the lack of sharpness in an image was intentional or random... a mistake or carefully executed? Then, take a perfectly sharp, yet uninspiring image... does it deserve a "special mention" for technique, or no mention at all?

The above is written as a photographer (myself) thinks. Show a picture to a non photographer, and everything can get turned upside down. Images of mine I was ready to delete, have been picked as favourites by non photographer people.

Don't overthink it... shoot and have an open mind about your own work and others... there often aren't right or wrong levels of sharpness... just images people do or don't like, whether sharp or not.

Unsharp to a photographer is often just fine to a viewer.

 

[DrHook59]

Let me remedy that. I actually like softness, with smallish specific areas of sharpness. The sharp areas don't have to be bitingly sharp, as the contrast between the softer & sharper areas tend to compliment each other. IMO. For example..........I'm ot sure

I'm not sure whether you used the P30 or the O30 in those photos, but you have illustrated wonderfully why I love my P30 for just the reason you describe.

 

[DrHook59]

In reply to Brian's opening question, sharpness is one of the many tools in a photographer's tool-box. But for me, no photographer's tools can really be used to change the original content of a photo. Content is king, and always will be. Yes, one can crop, one can change exposure and so on, but whether you choose to use sharpness - as the prevalent tool for that content - is the choice of the person behind the image. Sometime it is needed, sometimes even warranted, but it should never be the factor in deciding whether an image can attract and hold a viewer. Content should always be the prime ingredient in any picture.

Put yourself in front of a photograph. Do you look at it for a minute, for two minutes, for five perhaps? Tell me what you like about the picture? Is it the sharpness?

 

[Regor250]

Ditto, currently scanning old photographs (4x6 2@ 1200dpi), and the sharpness and details are terrible compared to even my very old 3Mpix digital photographs, but yet look very good in print. Speaking of resolution, how much do we "need"? Check this recent post of mine https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/65587593 of a raptor.

 

[paul cool]

"Sharpness" and "IQ" have a place but for me the real secret is being able to capture the images I want, when I want them

Over to you

I need sharpness when I want to be able to discern the fine details in an image. That depends on what kind of image it is; generally I want landscapes and still lifes of natural objects to be sharp; images of people and man-made objects, less so.

would you place "sharpness" over emotional impact of a landscape scene? (I realise we all have different objectives when we shoot so it is purely for interest)

You are so right about not having too much sharpness with images of people, I had real problems when shooting some studio portraits of more mature ladies on commission yet for some of the more "interesting " old dudes it was the sharper the better

sharpness is/can be overated people will look longer at a blurred image than say a sharp image fact.but sometimes a sharp image is needed to tell the story but very rare ,i mostly want sharp images as i can always soften if needed ,not sure many would want models with unsharp eyes ,or birds in flight that are soft ,or architecture that has no detail/sharpness ,and macro with no sharp focus becomes a mess,but then we have story telling ,creative ability ,and light which completes/complements the photo which is more important in general .But then post processing is now becoming the 80% of the image making ,i hardly apply sharpness now in my images and hardly ever globally although a lot of software adds sharpening ie lightroom on import ,dxo noise reduction,topaz denoise ,dxo photo labs etc.

Paul Stuart

Explore Paul Stuart’s 7,232 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Gnine]

Let me remedy that. I actually like softness, with smallish specific areas of sharpness. The sharp areas don't have to be bitingly sharp, as the contrast between the softer & sharper areas tend to compliment each other. IMO. For example..........I'm ot sure

I'm not sure whether you used the P30 or the O30 in those photos, but you have illustrated wonderfully why I love my P30 for just the reason you describe.

Neither. Sigma 30 1.4

 

[larsbc]

What editing software do you use to combine stills with video?

I started with Vegas Video and currently use Adobe Premiere. But virtually any video editing program can import still images.