what's the secret to razor sharp images

[KenPapai]

<p>Glass, technique, subject, light, and post processing skills (in ascending order of difficulty).</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Brad, you seem to have an ax to grind here.</p>

<p>First, I'm very impressed with the photographs you posted, especially if they simply came from the camera with no cropping and post work whatsoever. That is definitely a valid approach to photography with a long and rich heritage. Far be it from me to denigrate your work or your approach.</p>

<p>I'd simply ask that you acknowledge that there are some pretty significant threads in photographic art containing quite wonderful work by great photographers who work in an entirely different way. If you had to dismiss all photographs that were not the result of simply snapping the subject at the right moment and then printing the result you would have to dismiss a number of photographers that most would regard as among the very best there are.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, you seem to have an ax to grind here.

 

Where is the ax? There's no ax to grind at all.

 

The OP asked about portraits and supplied a link to some. After looking at them, the point that I and many *others* are making here

is that sharpness many times is a perception that many react to when absolute sharpness is not there; or is simply relative to

an area that is less sharp. Rather than the result of expensive cameras, lenses, a ton of skill, and secret knowledge. Anybody can do it.

 

What I'm trying to convey is that for less than $1,000 you can get a cam with a lens that will make really nice portraits. And just

about any brand. It really is that simple. Seriously, it is not complicated. Again, it's about the light. The above pix were candids

shot in a split second in nice light. Point the camera, press the shutter half-way, wait for AF confirmation, press further, and that's it.

Process in LR; nothing special there.

 

Flat or harsh light with an expensive camera and a very sharp and expensive lens will still yield a poor photograph. A beginner camera and lens with

great light will move; almost independent of the subject matter...

 

>>> I'd simply ask that you acknowledge that there are some pretty significant threads in photographic art containing quite wonderful

work by great photographers who work in an entirely different way.

 

Of course there are - I can list dozens. But we're not talking about them; nor did I dismiss anything with respect to the work of others. Rather, we're

specifically talking about perceived sharpness and portraits.

[blakley]

<p>This isn't complicated. For really sharp pictures, assuming you care about that, you need just a few things:<br>

1. An excellent lens.<br>

2. EITHER a very fast shutter speed, OR flash, OR a tripod with a subject which doesn't move<br>

3. EITHER excellent film (Velvia or Provia 100F are examples) OR digital sensor with no AA filter OR post-capture sharpening.<br>

The picture below (click for larger sizes) has all three: a Leica 50/1.4 Summilux Asph (very sharp), flash (freezes action despite a fairly slow shutter speed of 1/90), Leica M8 (digital sensor, no AA filter)<br>

You can, as observed above, get the appearance of higher sharpness from a photo which is not extremely sharp at the instant of capture by increasing contrast or by sharpening either in a wet darkroom or digitally.</p>

<p align="center"><a href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2750915398_88be266f10.jpg" alt="" /> </a></p>

[blakley]

<p>BTW lest anyone think I'm arguing with Brad here, you definitely don't need to spend a fortune to get a lens capable of excellent sharpness. An Olympus Stylus Epic (about $80 new when it was still made) had a fantastic lens; many sub-$500 digital cameras have very sharp lenses today, as do LOTS of used film cameras under $100. You just have to care and pay attention to what you're buying.</p>

[danzel_c]

<p>I really appreciate all the contributions to this thread! many beginners and photo enthusiast including my self sometimes would like to think that the key to great photographs is expensive equipment but that's not totally true. i'm sure there are many pros who could pick up a digital rebel w/18-55 lens and smoke a beginner with a 5D MKII and 85/1.2. i learned a lot here and will be printing this out for future reference. proper exposure, good light, contrast, choice of background for example are key factors to sharp images from what i read above and i totally agree. i agree that raw images take sharpening better in photoshop. now i can look at pictures i like and have a better understanding of "why" i like them. great advice from everyone! thanks! here's one that i shot yesterday. i applied more contrast, color saturation, and sharpened a bit. equipment was canon 40D, 70-200 2.8 IS, no flash. camera settings were iso200, 1/200, f2.8</p><div></div>

[Brad_]

That's a really nice photo, Danzel...

[danzel_c]

<p>thanks brad! by the way, i meant later afternoon, not late evening. it was pretty much overcast all day. considering the comments above more background blur could have been created by moving closer or zooming more. the original was a 3/4 length shot of the couple at 70mm focal length and i ended up cropping the final image to what you have here. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> thanks brad!

 

You're welcome. BTW, what makes it extra nice is the eye contact; letting viewers connect with the subject and want to

know more about them. I think the famous saying is: Eyes are the gateway to ones soul. Or something like that...

[blakley]

<p>I'm not arguing with you either, Ray (and I agree that the Stylus Epic lens is soft around the edges, but only at wide aperture; past f/4 it's sharp across the frame in my experience). Hasselblads are great and Zeiss lenses are scary sharp; the Contax G2's Zeiss lenses as sharp as almost any I've used on 35mm. But there are lots of much cheaper cameras with very sharp lenses too; Olympus made a lot of relatively cheap, fast, tiny, and very sharp lenses for the OM series. The Fujifilm DL Super Mini has a great lens (and it's a zoom!); it sold for about $130 new more than 10 years ago. <br>

My point is that if you want sharpness, you can find it at almost any price point IF you look for it. It's hard NOT to find it in medium format gear that's not got a plastic lens or a heritage of communist labor :-)</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>That model's eyes look very unnatural--in fact, rather creepy. The iris size is unusually small, the sclera are bluish-white and very flat, and there is a strangely abrupt transition from the plica semilunaris ("third eyelid") to the sclera, which again is atypical.</p>

<p>Altogether, the effect is not unlike the use of "special effect" contact lenses.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>The OP asked about portraits and supplied a link to some.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's is not quite the whole story. The OP's post was:<br>

<strong>"what's the secret to razor sharp images?"</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>Answering this question by referring to the contribution of lens selection and post-processing work is exactly what the OP requested.</p>

<p>I sure as heck did not say that one needs to buy expensive lenses to get sharp images, nor do I believe that to be the case. I often shoot with inexpensive primes. Nor did I dismiss the act of "capturing" the image as being unimportant in comparison to equipment considerations or post-processing techniques.</p>

<p>Again, not to deny that the things you speak of are important in achieving "sharpness" or the more important things that differentiate mediocre and fine photographs - but there are indeed things that the OP's specific question leads to that include post processing.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I sure as heck did not say that one needs to buy expensive lenses to get sharp images, nor do I believe that to be the

case. I often shoot with inexpensive primes. Nor did I dismiss the act of "capturing" the image as being unimportant in

comparison to equipment considerations or post-processing techniques.

 

Dan, I'm still not following you - I didn't reference you as saying anything of the kind. And my first post was not in response to yours - rather it was about MY personal and very valid, relevant experiences.

 

I did respond to your one comment saying, "... it's not so simple. Sorry." To which I strongly disagreed with (and still do) and responded

accordingly. You disagree and that's fine - certainly no need to frame it as having an ax to grind....

[peter]

<p>Years ago I used to target shoot. We had a saying - "Beware the man who only owns one rifle." The idea was that this man knew it and its limitations inside out and would usually outshoot any of us who like me kept buying kit to play with but who never really mastered any of it. I have often wondered if something similar is at play with photography. Like most kit freaks I am constantly searching for that special lens when probably I would do much better by learning to use the ones I have.</p>

<p>Speaking personally I find getting really sharp images to be difficult to achieve. Often the focus is just that little bit off either because of me or the camera. Or the shutter speed is just that little bit too slow. Or I have used an aperture which compromises sharpness (like shooting wide open for the out of focus background.) So mostly I am disappointed in this respect. I have occasionally fluked it and got it just right with just the right lens - recently I was trying a new acquisition - a Nikkor AIS 105mm f4 micro lens that I was testing at long distances and when I got a couple of shots back they just jumped out and bopped me in my eyeballs - I have never before or since seen anything quite so sharp. But that is obviously an exception.</p>

<p>When I have shot an image by hand and re-shot it with the same settings from a tripod I have usually been able to notice a difference. Even if the original hand shot photo looks OK - the tripod one will almost invariably look a little sharper at least. Believe me I have tried it and its rare that this is not true - the tiny movements as you shoot - even at quite high shutter speeds can make the difference between an image that is OK sharp and one that is holy cow sharp.</p>

<p>Sharpness is just about impossible to really correct well in post processing if you get it wrong in camera by more than a miniscule amount! OK you can twiddle that dial with your various smart filters - but if there is any untoward movement of camera or subject at the time of shooting its really not going to be possible to fix that - I have found. Because of course that seems not to be what sharpening filters do. (One possible exception - I have seen but not properly had a chance to try some plugins that purport o be able to make allowances for camera movement at the time of shooting - you tell the software the direction fo the image blur and by how many pixels and it then reverses that effect. Maybe this helps I am not sure - I would be surprisedd if it really produces super sharp images.) But in general while you may improve a shot in post processing I have never seen any really come up tops and I suspect the result is eldom going to be a knock out in terms of sharpness.</p>

<p>When that happens I just give in to the inevitable and go the other way - use an artistic interpretation that takes the emphasis "off sharp" or "not sharp"as an issue. At the end of the day thats what matters - getting a good interpretation not on whether the image is really really sharp.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, Brad. You are welcome to your opinion - and I'll continue express mine and share my experience with shooting, post-processing, and printing. I'll let that stand as my answer to you for now.</p>

<p>For those who are interested in how to also optimize image quality in the post-processing and printing stage I'll stand by my first in this thread - and I'd be happy to offer additional information to anyone who is interested in any of the issues that I addressed.</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, Brad. You are welcome to your opinion - and I'll continue express mine and share my experience with shooting, post-processing, and printing. I'll let that stand as my answer to you for now.</p>

<p>For those who are also interested in the important question of how to optimize image quality in all phases of photography including the post-processing and printing stage I'll stand by my first post in this thread - and I'd be happy to offer additional information to anyone who is interested in any of the issues that I addressed.</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[myattphotoandfotoart39]

<p>For closeup portraits; do not focus and then recompose.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>For closeup portraits; do not focus and then recompose.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Especially if you shoot wide open! :-)</p>

 

[bkkstudios]

<p>Stupid question from an amateur here, but, here goes...</p>

<p>Everyone says use a tripod. But in outdoor shots, you often can use a very high shutter speed, versus a lower speed and tripod.</p>

<p>So my question is...is there any theoretical difference? Do higher shutter speeds produce less quality?</p>

<p>Likewise, there was a comment made about being 1-2 f-stops above wide open for optimum quality. With the newer lens', is there really a sweet spot there for quality?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>Do higher shutter speeds produce less quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A higher shutter speed is generally preferable to tripod (or otherwise stabilized camera.) A tripod won't stop subject motion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... comment made about being 1-2 f-stops above wide open for optimum quality. ... is there really a sweet spot there for quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the case with every camera lens I've come across. For 135 format film or "full frame" digital, the highest sharpness range is about 2 stops down from wide open but no smaller aperture than f8.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>In terms of pure optical quality the shutter speed essentially doesn't matter - but the stability of the camera may. A high shutter speed reduces that amount of blur from camera motion and a very high shutter speed may make in inconsequential, especially if you are not making a giant print and/or other factors in the image make absolute sharpeness not so important.</p>

<p>If you are making a photograph in which absolute sharpness is more important - for example many landscapes or architectural photographs - then using a tripod will virtually eliminate camera motion as a source of blur.</p>

<p>What we know about "sweet spots" for resolution could be described in several different ways:</p>

<ol>

<li>The overall resolution from a lens will diminish for one set of reasons as you approach the largest aperture. (In some lenses it diminishes a lot, in others less - but it always diminishes.) Whether or not this matters in a given shot "depends."</li>

<li>The overall resolution from a lens will also diminish as you stop down due to diffraction blur. There is a point at which this might become significant to you depending upon what format you shoot and what you do with the photographs and other factors. On crop it is safest to be cautious about over-using apertures smaller than f/8 and on full frame smaller than about f/16, though these are certainly not absolute values.</li>

<li>There is some aperture between these limits at which a lens can generally produce its "best" resolution. Where that is also depend on a bunch of factors, but somewhere in the f/5.6-f/8 range is pretty common.</li>

<li>Making things a bit more complex is the fact that the various factors that lead to a sharp image are affected differently at different apertures. For example a lens might produce its best center sharpness at f/5.6 but better corner sharpness at f/8.</li>

</ol>

<p>Crazy, no?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jgalyon]

<p><strong>what's the secret to razor sharp images</strong><br>

it starts with someone else shooting them rather than me...</p>

[steve_mareno]

<p>Remove lens from camera. Install Leica lens. Enjoy sharp photos.</p>

[arie07]

<p>This is another example of a PN member who "talks" photography but keeps others from looking at it.<br />Like swimming, walking, driving a bike etc - you need to "do" rather than "talk" it is my feeling that you need to upload some work of yours in order to get other PN members to try and help you by examining the images, see what may be wrong and sugest ways to improve the results<br>

Kindly email me after you upload your photos and I'll try to provide any advise I can.</p>

[bkkstudios]

<p>So not sure if anyone is still reading here, but historically, I've done all my studio shots at a shutter speed of 200 and f-stop at 10 or 12. This is becuase my studio is small, and I didn't think it made sense to have DoF in a small studio.</p>

<p>So, is this a bad shooting practice? i.e., should I be dropping down my lights and going to f 5.6 or so? I can do that, but it means changing my shooting style a bit (distance from subject).</p>

<p>I'm amateur, but I want to understand this, so that I know what to do to optimize theoretical quality, and leave the idiot quality to my own incompetence!</p>

<p>Thx.</p>