Jump to content

what's the secret to razor sharp images


Recommended Posts

<p>i have had a few canon "L" series lenses and none have produced the high definition razor sharp images straight of the the camera that i see on many photographer websites. i love the high definition look. is this done with unsharp mask or smart sharpen in photoshop? or with some other combination of actions in photoshop?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>If you link to some examples, you'll get some more specific commentary. But in the meantime:<br /><br />If you're looking at images on photographers' web sites, you're probably never seeing anything wider than 1000 pixels at the most. Those images have been reduced in resolution to fit gracefully on a computer display, and have then been sharpened in ways appropriate to that format. That's a much different thing that producing images that are intended for large prints, for example.<br /><br />Much of what people often perceive as sharpness is actually contrast, or is good planning on the part of the photographer. Good planning with regard to choice of background, use of glancing light to define edges and shapes, and other techniques that register with your brain in way that brings the subject sharply into your <em>attention,</em> optical sharpness or not.<br /><br />Light and good technique (appropriate shutter speed to avoid subject/camera movement blur), camera support (a real, not junky tripod) have to be present before anything else will matter. Then some wise choices about composition, especially as it relates to foreground/background relationship. And <em>then</em> good and not over-done work with post production sharpening techniques (including <em>selective</em> sharpening of just the areas that are psychologically important to the image and to your perception of what should jump out at you... like the subject's eyes in a portrait, etc).<br /><br />So, are you talking about landscapes? Product shots? Portraits? Sports?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>in any case, stop using USM..old fitler that cause more problem than the quality you should get.</p>

<p>Smart Sharpen is by far the better pluging included in Ps, and for me the best of them all. You can also use PK Sharpener that do the sharpening for you base on your original and print size..but many of my test didnt yield to better result vs what I could do with smart sharpen.</p>

<p>Any images should have a sharpening applied to them, at different stage and for different reason. Heres a summary of what i use;</p>

<p>1_ Capture Sharpening is applied early in the image-editing process, and just aims to restore any sharpness that was lost in the capture process.<br /> 2_ Creative Sharpening is usually applied locally to accentuate specific features in an image-for example, we often give eyes a little extra sharpness in head shots.<br /> 3_ Output Sharpening is applied to files that have already had capture and creative sharpening applied, after they've been sized to final output resolution, and is tailored to a specific type of output process.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Everything you linked to are portraits. When shooting portraits I really don't concentrate on sharpness but rather lighting. A sharp picture in poor lighting is a poor photo. It also looks like he's smoothed over any facial blemishes or maybe the models are just wearing more makeup than normal.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p> matt, i'm referring to portraits. here's just one link to some amazingly sharp photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, is that what you mean. The key is is the use of selective depth of focus. It doesn't matter if the lens is L or not. Do use a fast normal or short telephoto prime - a 50mm to 90mm lens capable of f2 or faster.</p>

<p>In setting up the shot, make sure the subject is relatively close, say just about a meter or two away from the lens. You'll want whatever background in the shot to be as far away as possible. Set the lens aperture to around f2.8 to f4. The smaller aperture works fine if the background can be pushed far back or the subject brought forward more. Place focus on the (nearest) eye.</p>

<p>USM sharpening in post is not ideal but can work well if applied with discretion. Basically, duplicate the layer, sharpen, and mask in the eyes, eye lashes, and perhaps some hair highlights.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Brad is absolutely right. Sharpness is a perceptional phenomenon. Subject contrast, which is directly influenced by texture and lighting, will go much further to create the appearance of sharpness than any amount of post-processing, which is also necessary to compensate losses along the way as Patrick points out above. Start with a rock-solid camera/tripod, if possible lock up your mirror or use a rangefinder to avoid slap, favor shorter focal lengths and exposure times, use fewer filters on your lens, choose the right balance between specularity and softness of lighting, and the rest of the process will be easier. Also be aware that great specs don't guarantee every lens off the line will be sharp - there are rare manufacturing imprecisions, and elements can become misaligned by a jolt even before you buy, so you may want to find a dealer that will let you test several units of the same model until you find one that is as sharp as you want.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Robert. What you're really seeing there is careful control over the use of a wide-open, large aperture lens that's producing good bokeh that helps the foreground subject to really stand out. Obviously, it's very important when working with shallow DoF to be sure you're choosing your focus points well - since you may have only an inch of workable DoF. But if that inch or three includes the eyes and other important facial features, you get the basic material you need to then proceed into post.<br /><br />But without the well-chosen and well-shaped light, you lose everything that makes those images feel present.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There is no one "secret" - but a whole series of things that you must attend to. Even using "L" lenses is not guarantee - and it is quite possible to end up with very sharp images when non-L lenses are used. While equipment plays a part in all of this, technique and aesthetic sense are generally far more important.</p>

<p>In no particular order, here are some thoughts about what makes for a sharp print.</p>

<ul>

<li>contrasts in color, luminosity, form, and so forth often do more to create a subject sense of sharpness than does actual objective sharpness.</li>

<li>Sometimes too much sharpness can reduce the subjective sense of sharpness and careful use of blur can increase it. This was alluded to above, but using a wide aperture that blurs the background details (even at the expense of ultimate sharpness in the main subject) can create a subjectively sharper image of the main subject that one in which the background is also in focus. </li>

<li>Similar effects can be created by isolating the subject against simple or even plain backgrounds or by isolating it via differences in light/dark tones or by color differences, etc.</li>

<li>Good lenses are not unimportant, but more lenses are good than you might think. I use a bunch of L lenses but my "sharpest" lenses are non-L primes. But I don't always choose to use the primes since the sharpest lens may not always create the sharpest image (even if sharpness is your main goal - and it isn't always). If I have to crop a prime shot to get the right composition, I'll lose some or all of its resolution advantage. (Sharpness is not generally the most important reason to choose a prime._</li>

<li>Larger formats are capable of higher resolution in your photograph. (The fact that resolution at the sensor in crop is higher is irrelevant to that point.)</li>

<li>Careful focus is absolutely critical. There are a number of issues that affect this ranging from how quickly you shoot through adjustment issues with your equipment to how and when you manually focus and even the good/bad effects of aperture choices.</li>

<li>Camera stability is critical. If you want the sharpest images that your gear is capable of you must use a tripod, MLU, a remote release - even then you need to pay attention to things like the breeze, to waiting a moment after MLU to make the exposure, etc. It is not impossible to hand hold the camera and get a sharp image, but it is not easy - it requires great care and some real practice. Your success rate will be lower, and the larger you print the more likely you'll see the problems.</li>

<li>Post-processing techniques are critical - and I don't just mean sharpening. What you do with curves, contrast, color adjustments, etc. - often done to separate areas of the image using masks - is incredibly significant in creating that sense of subjective sharpness I described above. There are too many things to cover in that regard to try to list them all, much less describe them.</li>

<li>Sharpening techniques are critical. There are a number of approaches to sharpening and I'm convinced that one can get good results from different processes. But you do need to learn a post-process sharpening workflow that gets you the results you want, and you need to customize it for different photographic situations. To offer a generalized view, I think that there are three sorts of sharpening that are useful if you are really critical about this:</li>

</ul>

<ol>

<li>Fine edge sharpening wiht a small radius and larger amount to produce fine details. CS4 smart sharpening is powerful here - though it isn't necessarily the only or the whole answer. For starting points you could try the old Canon recommendation of amount: 300 and radius .3 or you could start with amount 150 and radius 1. In either case you'll need to adjust and fine tune.</li>

<li>Local edge contrast enhancement with larger radius and lower amount using Unsharp Mask (USM). A good starting point could be to use 12, 50, 1 in CS4 USM. Again, variations are possible and desireable for different images.</li>

<li>Print sharpening, or alternative "screen sharpening" for reduced-size jpg images. The object of print sharpening is to compensate in advance for the fact that the ink will spread when it hits the paper. I work on a flattened version of the file at 100% and slightly over-sharpen - differently for different types of paper. (For downsized screen display jpgs I don't "over-sharper" but I do a final post-downsize USM at something in the general range of 30, 1, 1</li>

</ol>

<p>Whew. I'll stop there...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matt Laur said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What you're really seeing there is careful control over the use of a wide-open, large aperture lens that's producing good bokeh that helps the foreground subject to really stand out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At least to me, "wide open" seems unlikely, at least in most of these shots. Many are taken with the 85/1.2L, which has almost no depth of field at all wide open. These shots are sharp from the tip of her nose back to at least her ears. At least to me, that says somewhere around f/4 or so.</p>

<p>For comparison, I've enclosed a shot at f/1.4. With the focus on his near eye, his far eye shows virtually no detail at all.</p>

<div>00TSpN-137763684.thumb.jpg.4777c11d6f5b5254f922a7bde605a800.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The above portrait is a good example of the effect of shallow DOF, but it might have been better shot at 1.8. Then both eyes would be in focus.<br>

With Canon, some ordinary lenses perform better than L lenses...same with Nikon. You have to know the lens and understand where in the aperture range the lens is sharpest. Its usually not wide open. There are lots of good sites that will tell you.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I am a total ignoramous when it comes to photo editing, but I've seen countless fantastic shots that were clearly edited in some form and that were not particularly sharp. I think there's a certain look that can be found in different forms in a lot of great images, and that's really what you're after when you're shooting and then editing. </p>

<p>I can't begin to count the number of times on some photo sharing sites that I've seen a great shot listed as being taken with what I know to be a kit or consumer-level lens and DSLR. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with everything said above. G Dan Mitchell covered it pretty well. Learned some things.<br>

Recently, feeling disadvantaged because I didn't have Leica optics, plopped my old FE on a tripod, and shot my 35 mm and 85 mm wide-open at f/2 on Kodachrome 25. And at f/4. Used the self-timer to lockup the mirror. I don't feel so bad about not having Leica optics anymore.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mix-plate/3472987104/in/set-72157617196105735/<br>

35 mm f/2 @ f/2<br>

At this point, for my pictures, if my images are not "sharp", I look beyond the hardware.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>OK, so not <em>wide</em> open. But if you're working at a decent distance with a short tele lens, you can definitely get a puddle of in-focus working area that's just about as deep as the subject's face (nose to partway-through-the-hair), and still keep the aperture at or under f/2.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Stephen Aspry said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The above portrait is a good example of the effect of shallow DOF, but it might have been better shot at 1.8. Then both eyes would be in focus.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt Laur said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK, so not <em>wide</em> open. But if you're working at a decent distance with a short tele lens, you can definitely get a puddle of in-focus working area that's just about as deep as the subject's face (nose to partway-through-the-hair), and still keep the aperture at or under f/2.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've cropped it to keep the size more reasonable, but I've enclosed a crop from an otherwise reasonably similar shot, but at f/2. In this case, "reasonably similar", means he's moved/re-posed some, but you can't hope for a 7 year-old to stay still for long -- it was only under the influence of his currently-favorite video game that he stayed in one place long enough to get both of these!</p>

<p>f/1.8 clearly wouldn't have been enough. f/2 can be enough if the subject faces almost directly toward the camera and you shoot from farther away than I was. I still suspect that the pictures linked by the OP were taken closer to f/4 (or taken from farther away and rather heavily cropped). Of course, there is the fact that they were taken with a Canon, which has a crop factor of 1.6, where my camera has a crop factor of 1.5, so my working distance (to fill the frame to the same degree) is slightly closer. While a FF sensor gives noticeably shallower DoF, I'd be a bit more surprised if there was much difference between 1.5 and 1.6.</p><div>00TSso-137785784.jpg.95e0291bc1e9546d47edd808223fd7a4.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think lighting is the big thing missing in your image there.</p>

<p>If I may point to some images that I think are spectacular, or at least very well done, I'd like to see what people have to say about them. A local photographer and student in my area has done some great work, and can be seen here: http://www.davidblakeman.com/blog/</p>

<p>I can break down most (but not all) of how he's doing it, but the missing bit is how much editing is going into his photos. He posts some unedited photos on one of the pages, and that's helpful in itself: http://www.blakemanphoto.com/blog/?paged=3<br>

Most of his work is done in the afternoon/golden hour, which obviously helps a lot.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...