Crazy Sharpness

[clemsonguy]

<p>I'm fairly new to photography and still learning. With that said, I have taken quite a bit of photographs lately and have yet to produce an image with this kind of detail or sharpness. It almost seems unreal.<br>

Does anyone know how the photographer achieved this level of detail. Is it a combo of a very high quality lens and lighting?<a href="http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=48540de6d154e&date=2008-06-14%2014:29:01&id=2151&pid=7140497" alt="" />Photo.</a></p><b>Image replaced by link. Per the photo.net Terms of Use, do not post photos that are not yours.</b>

<p>Any inputs would be welcome. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[sweet jesus]

<p>I would say a combination of an expert make-up artist, excellent lighting and a $35,000 camera. Quite lovely. </p>

[robert lee]

<p>Use a strobe. Shoot at smallish apertures and low ISO. Selectively and aggressively sharpen in post - eyes, lips, hair, fabric.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>a $35,000 camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know some people like to attribute success to a camera, but that's not the case. It was taken with a $1500 camera. The image has the EXIF in it. There's a huge amount of work done in post here. It's not just sharpening, by softening the skin the sharpened areas are made to stand out.</p>

[sweet jesus]

<p>Actually a question: I have seen quite a few photographs that have that "wow" incredible sharpness. Some high-end camera ads do come to mind. I'm wondering, though, do these photographs all get major time in post work? Is it possible to get such results right out of the camera, given appropriate lenses? </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Strobes will help with sharpness, but what you see in magazines is generally heavily worked over. As I mention above, it's not just the sharpening in these photos of people, it's the way the eye reads it when the sharp parts are next to softened skin. It highlights the sharpness, "wow" as you put it.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>The EXIF data says it's a Nikon D200. So it's not exactly a $35k camera. My Exif reader doesn't list the lens, but it's probably $1-1.5K lens, plus great lighting, like a Broncolor setup. That's where the $35k would be spent.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Its been badly photoshopped. The tricept edge area of the right arm has been redefined from the armpit to the elbow. You can see that the line quite clearly is different to the natural edges of other parts of her body. When you profile edges in PS you lose the profile of tiny skin hairs which soften the transitions. A dead giveaway. As such, its a 3/10. Sorry to disappoint. Girlfriend mag might buy it, though. (Now watch me get flamed!)</p>

 

[patricklavoie]

<p>all that and <em><strong>too strong</strong> </em> sharpen applied..you got that result ; )</p>

<p>As for the camera price, good lenses, flash..it all you really need for many use...</p>

<p>heres a example;</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>and the whole image...</p>

<p>photo by stephane milhomme ©</p><div></div>

[charlesheckel]

<p>The image you consider "crazy sharp" was taken with electronic flash, eliminating motion blur, and a good-quality lens on a professional-grade 10 megapixel camera. It doesn't have anything like the resolution or image detail you'd expect of something like a 4x5 view camera, or even a medium-format 6x7 cm. What it does have is local contrast, which creates perceived sharpness.</p>

<p>If you examine it carefully, you see regions of distinct color with very definite contour lines, which are enhanced by tonal separation, and gradients where one color shades gradually into others, which have, as Jeff points out, been blurred, with the exception of lit cheek and forehead, where a little noise was added.</p>

<p>The picture is particularly persuasive because it doesn't have global contrast, which we generally expect from flash pictures. The key is fairly low, but exposure is spot-on and there's a lot of fill. The colors are soft and natural, ranging in the middle tones, and detail is preserved throughout the range, with catchlights white and pupils black. You see this image as low in contrast, but in fact local contrast has been pumped, creating an impression of "crazy sharpness."</p>

<p>Patrick's example, by contrast, resolves a lot of fine detail, but it doesn't give the same effect as yours because it depends more on the lighting for contrast, rather than amped-up local contrast. There are two areas where it does appear very sharp, in the texture of the hat and in the effect of the face and the veil--naturally occurring areas of local contrast.</p>

[clemsonguy]

<p>I appreciate all the answers, but I have to admit that I am going to have to reread them tonight to make sure I even understand what you all said. LOL<br>

What I am taking away from this at this point is that it is as a much a photoshop technique as good lighting and a lens. I noticed as well from the EXIF data is that they were using a 175mm lens. What is the significance of that? It seem like a rather long focal length for a portrait. Isn't 105mm more in line for this purpose?<br>

Again, thanks for all the very enlightening technical information. Nothing like relizing how little I know.<br>

Dan</p>

[stamos]

<p>"Its been badly photoshopped"<br>

Stephen it would be nice to show us your work. I admire the work of Patrick and I would like to admire your work too.</p>

[wogears]

<p>The image linked by the OP is pretty good. The photog messed up a tiny bit with the skin mask, but he certainly <em>wasn't</em> trying for a realistic effect. (Just check out the very long false eyelashes.) It's <em>not</em> crazy-sharp; as others have poined out, the effect of sharpness is increased by contrast with the heavily softened skin.. OTOH, it works in my opinion. In fashion, illusion is all.</p>

[mark_wilkinson7]

<p>Clemson, I read a fantastic book which answered so many questions I had when I got started. "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson. I have recommended it to many others. I'm pretty sure he updates it regularly. Very often, he shows you several photos of the same subject taken consecutively with different aperture values (depth of field), shutter speed, different lenses, different ISO rating, different color balances, etc. so you can see for yourself how each function and how they work together. I read it about 2 times.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Amazing, I was thinking Hasselblads all the way until Jeff pointed out the EXIF data. Portraits like these are fine for people and models who have flawless skin but for the average person they might not be too flatering. </p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>Portraits like these are fine for people and models who have flawless skin but for the average person they might not be too flatering.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not necesary. Portyrait like these can be done with almost anyone, depend on what you are after in the end, and how much post you put on. This image is of course heavily manipulated to get the skin where it is. And many people are fool by the oversharpness of a file and think its a sign of a expensive camera...</p>

<p>For me theres many flaw with that images; no more highlight on her cheek, red skintone, too smooth hand, over sharpen cause the image too feel like sand are over it, it miss some contrast in all the natural hightlight..that have been remove bacause of the skin softening process and not add back.</p>

<p>Heres a example of what i meant..or what should have been done.</p>

 

[patricklavoie]

<p>the after image with some quick minor adjustment.<br>

Copyright: Mikey Boy</p>

<p>http://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic_id=48540de6d154e&date=2008-06-14%2014:29:01&id=2151&pid=7140497</p><div></div>

[stamos]

<p>For my taste a version between the original and the edit of Patrick would be even better.</p>