What is it about this picture?

[rob_hanssen]

<p>I wast just trying my latest lens addition, a Diana F+ mount 20mm fish-eye (for medium format) converted to Canon EF mount on my Canon 30D.<br>

After uploading to flickr and some minor processing, I noticed that the giraffe in this picture was very pronounced compared to the background and foreground. Can't quite get my brains on it why it seems so sharp, while in reality the technical aspects of this lens/picture aren't that good.<br>

Any comments?<br>

<a title="Giraffe by Rob, Joyce & Alex, on Flickr" href=" title="Giraffe by Rob, Joyce & Alex, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4032/4432593459_4e65d58d11.jpg" alt="Giraffe" width="333" height="500" /> </a></p>

[don_cooper]

<p>About all I notice is the heavy over saturation and purple fringing.</p>

[rogerwb]

<p>Without going into a lot of optical theory, all lenses will have an optimum distance for perfect focus at a given aperture. Any lens will also be sharper in the center than the edges. The body of your giraffe is very sharp but the head, being away from the center of the picture is starting to get a little fuzzy.</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Good answer Don...now, how about answering <strong>Rob's question. </strong>(phrasing shamelessly stolen from Dr.Phil, who uses it as a come back to people who completely ignore his original question)</p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Never mind, Don. Roger offered a sound answer.</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>John, Rob asked "any comments". I provided my comments. Did not realize I should run it by you first.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>Now Now, lets fight nice...</p>

<p>What I see is that the Giraffe is not really all that sharp, however it is the sharpest part of the image and the pattern provides just enough detail for the eye to pick up on. I would call it "apparent sharpness". What the eye sees as sharp can be relative to what is around it.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Rob,</p>

 

<p>I’ll refrain from commenting on the aesthetic merits of the picture.</p>

 

<p>The giraffe has a fair amount of visual separation from the background for the simple reason that it

differs in both tone and color from the background. If you notice the shadows around the

giraffe’s privates, you’ll see that they blend into the shadows of the foliage.</p>

 

<p>The saturation would be much less pronounced with proper white balance.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[rob_hanssen]

<p>As for the aesthetic and technical qualities of this photo. I totally agree with the people above. This was more meant as a fun photo to test the quality of the lens and to get some over-the-top shots to actually accentuate the purple fringing. Please see this as an entry into lomographic photography and certainly not the end-point.<br>

Thanks for all the comments.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>I suspect that what you are picking up on is what I sometimes call "focus contrast", i.e., even if an object in a picture is not perfectly in focus, if the rest of the image is even more OOF, that object looks pretty good. So, in this picture, the foreground rocks are clearly OOF, and the trees on the skyline clearly show blurring / fringing from lens defects, so the subject doesn't look as soft as one might expect.</p>

<p>In addition, Ben's comment about other aspects of visual separation is right on the mark. </p>

<p>Finally, I notice a bit of a black fringe around parts of the outline of giraffe (most noticeable on the top of his neck). I'm not sure what caused this (...maybe just fur, maybe a bit of PP?), but however it happened, it makes the giraffe look a bit like a cut-out / well separated from the bkgnd.</p>

<p>Tom M.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Good answer Don...now, how about answering <strong>Rob's question. </strong> (phrasing shamelessly stolen from Dr.Phil, who uses it as a come back</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good answer John... now, how about answering <strong>Rob's question. </strong></p>

<p>I tend to agree with Ben although I'm not sure if a giraffe considers the area in question as private.<br>

<strong><br /> </strong></p>