Sharpness Absurdity

[kenneth_smith7]

<p>The sharpness obsession had me in it's grips. Despite my knowing better, I had to check it out anyway, and hopefully bury it forever, so even though this post smacks of time wasting, its dedicated to the end of the year, end of sharpness worries and end of comparing cameras for that inadequate reason. <br>

I am forty years in, and have done medium and large format for most of it. The first digital was as late as 2011, amazing in and of itself, with the D7000. I have since tested a D7100 and found no reason to upgrade. Point being, neither is the D750, or even the D810. The quality difference is just not that big a deal. High ISO, sure, focus in dark, buffers, etc. All the other reasons, sure, but splitting hairs over sharpness, no, not really.<br>

Regards dynamic range and shadow detail, my D7000 shines, and post processing NEF's, are you kidding me? Many here probably know what slides required.<br>

So with good lens quality and good technique I'm as sharp as need be, for me, to my eyes, non professional and likely never about to print beyond 30 inches. It is after all the image itself that counts the most. I don't think I've ever seen good pictures and thought, ohh, if only that were taken with a 4x5.<br>

And yet the nagging mind that knows better is still peaking in at senseless tests and discussions wondering, is there a sharper camera sensor? Now unlike the rather dull Rockwell conclusion that "real" photographers don't worry about sharpness, of course they do, in a hundred circumstances, the real question should be, why should that be so important? It concerns one to not fumble the instruments capability, with poor focus and shake, but beyond that, why would it be so important to see more and more detail, because that seems to be where so called improvements are continuing to head. While it would be scientifically useful, aesthetically it's kind of absurd. It improves nothing to count eyelashes on a leopard. In fact they become fake looking. As bad as those dreadful every pore mug shots on the cover of Time that make a person look worse than they ever have in their life. <br>

So is there a question? No not, really, but I would be interested in hearing about how possessed others might be, how they place this attribute on their scale of importance, and maybe even how they dispense with it altogether. </p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>I'm still looking for the tonal graduations of film in a digital camera. Haven't found it yet. Sharpness is less important to me.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Sharp enough is sharp enough, but some of us define "enough" differently. You don't need huge prints either. A lot of detail, including textures, is preserved when downsampling for a print, more than starting from a lower resolution. It takes a lot of care to extract the most from a 40-50 MP sensor, including exceptional lenses, sturdy tripods, electronic shutters and a remote release. Even with image stabilization, you may not see much difference from a 12 MP image with hand-held exposures or mediocre lenses.</p>

<p>A modern sensor, as in a Sony A7Rii, has 13 stops dynamic range - more than from any color film, and on a par with the best B&W. If you don't see the tonal resolution you desire, you just aren't looking very hard.</p>

[michael_darnton2]

<p>It's not just tonal resolution, but also tonal distribution, and I'm not getting it, no. Nor are the best conversions from digital that I've been seeing. Pretty good on it's own, but it's different, and I can see that.</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Even the most expensive lenses have trouble producing sharp results as I'm having to assume from this review of a German engineered app "PiccurePlus" review I just came across today that mathematically applies optical correction & image sharpness enhancements directly to Raw data.</p>

<p>http://www.thephotovideoguy.ca/blog/1865</p>

<p>Going by the before samples I get better sharpness from $80 kit lens on a 2006 6MP Pentax DSLR. So now I'm confused on what is considered sharp enough.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

As far as tools go, the better the better.<br>Having a camera that allows you to create images in which you can count a leopard's eyelashes, you can do so whenever you think it would be something you want to do. Such a camera will also allow you to create images in which you can't count said eyelashes.<br>Doesn't work the other way round.<br>What you do should be your choice. Not a restriction imposed on your creativity by a limited, and hence limiting, tool.<br>But alas, no tool is perfect, yet. But luckily, we can get by quite well with much less than perfection. What a happy coincidence! ;-)<br><br>That piccure+ thing appears to be a bad example of an oversharpening tool. Can be done as 'well' in any decent image processing software, including the stuff put in cameras.

[Brad_]

<p>>>> No not, really, but I would be interested in hearing about how possessed others might be, how they place this attribute on their scale of importance, and maybe even how they dispense with it altogether.</p>

<p>Not much. Unless a lens is broken or defective, sharpness is not something I worry about. My dSLR, point-n-shoot, iPhone and accompanying lenses, are all fine. From looking at my photos, I have no particular preference of one camera over another.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if my photography was about achieving "the best" with respect to technical parameters/minutia, I would care.</p>

<p>Instead, I prefer making photos that move and stir my and/or a viewer's mind/imagination. I have yet to see a photo where that's driven by sharpness.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>There are photos for which sharpness is important. For example, for photographs that will be used to identify insect pests in the house or garden, it is essential to have sharp enough photos to make an identification.<br>

<br />Otherwise, sharpness and other technical considerations such as tonal stuff, it's only in service of the photo, not vice versa, and photos that make people feel something, as Brad suggested, are not about the technical considerations. They're about the photo content, but, of course, that's not as easy for people to talk about, they actually have to show photos.</p>

[steven_clark]

<p>My vote is never pay more money for equipment that you don't at least intend to use to take an image you couldn't have taken before.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>For many of us, seeing detail that we don't see with our naked eye, or even with a spotting scope, is at least part of the reason for being a photographer. Particularly when I shoot birds, I compare the alternative takes (my camera takes 10-fps) I look at the eye at 100% and keep only those that are very sharp. I'm looking for perfect focus, stop-action and great detail, all at once. I do occasionally print large, but I can see the difference on my monitor, particularly when I display the image full-screen.</p>

<p>Here's an example, that I took this afternoon, where I think that sharpness is not an absurdity.</p>

<p><a title="Kestrel Perched On Mullein In Evening Sun" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5684/23387654773_d5e3a0cd13_c.jpg" alt="Kestrel Perched On Mullein In Evening Sun" width="640" height="800" /></a></p>

<p>Oh yeah, the 70% crop is another reason to go for pristine sharpness in the original file. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

Haven't had a sharpness worry since I bought my first tripod and a Zeiss Tessar four element lens.Long time worry free, ( Kodachrome 120 recall that one?) nice feeling, saved money... The 'obsession' as you put it, is a kind of group hypnosis. Induced by the 'shamans' of camera and lens sale, bless 'em. Who are now tooting th undefinable- go ahead and try- quality of Unsharpness! The thing we have learned to call bokeh... Unsharpness glorified, Slight of hand almost, well kind of. Folks eat it up/

 

For me and you let us agree to be philosophical, Ken, since you have watched the passing parade too.

Think of recorded music, which went downhill from SACD to MP3 with nothing really lost. The mind truly does fills in the missing pieces, auditory and visual. I do not speak for DOD spy sattelite cameras/ drone surveillance cameras, Or birders who look for the species and gender....I love them guys and gals too, no offense BIFers.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Absurd is to go in pursuit of something you have no purpose for once you caught up with it.<br>Sharpness itself should not be discussed, but instead we should aks ourselves if and when we need it and why. There is no general answer to a question about how much or how little sense there is in striving for "sharpness". (And it makes little sense to start a peeing contest to determine who can be the most nonchalant about something, or who can find the most 'colourful' way to express an i'm-way-above-such-a-thing pose. We are talking about a tool, no more.)<br>There is a general answer to the question how much sense it makes to strive for anything you (for whatever reason) really want and need. We have these things that determine the qualities of the visual thing we creatie using this visual medium at our disposal. We take control (i at least hope we all do), and use whatever we need to give what we make the visual impact we want it to have, and do that in whatever way we think is best.

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>Think of recorded music, which went downhill from SACD to MP3 with nothing really lost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The analogy is pretty perfect - amplify MP3s on a competent stereo with good speakers or headphones, after hearing a CD (let alone SACD or high-res losless audio), and the mind does <strong>not</strong> fill in the gaps. MP3s loose the equivalent of tonality and do oversharpening - it's pretty easy to hear the differences on decent quality equipment. No different as looking at a print made by an expert, and compare that to viewing a heavily compressed JPEG of the same photo, on a non-calibrated cheap glossy TN panel in a notebook in a well-lit room. The mind will not fill in the gaps, and you will miss bits and pieces. Once you're used to a certain level of quality, it's hard to go back. This has little to do with the content of the photo (or the merit of the music performed), but rather with how that content is presented, and how enjoyable the experience of viewing/hearing that presentation is.</p>

<p>Print utterly large, and sharpness does start to matter, whether one likes it or not. Try live stadium recordings, or large-scale symphonic classical music on MP3, and you will find that bitrates matter an awful lot. It doesn't make the performance/content of the photo less valid (or less in any sense), but it does become a lot harder to assess that, to enjoy it and to be critically sure that what you see/hear is what was intended.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The camera has little bearing on the perceived sharpness of the image. That's down to the lens or digital processing. So if you really want to see what your camera body can do without breaking the bank, get a Samyang 135mm f/2 lens. Then you'll have some standard to judge other lenses by. After seeing (pretty much) the best, maybe then the ghost-of-sharpness-past can finally be laid to rest.</p>

<p>But, no, sharpness shouldn't be the be-all and end-all by which a picture is judged. Especially in this era when almost nobody actually prints their pictures anymore. It doesn't take much to exceed the resolution of a smartphone, tablet or laptop screen. Composition, composition and composition are the three main criteria to look for in a photo, closely followed by lighting and subject interest.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>It should be sharp enough to not have to say its not in focus. Then it's up to the content and lighting to carry the photo.</p>

[Brad_]

<p>>>> And it makes little sense to start a peeing contest to determine who can be the most nonchalant about something, or who can find the most 'colourful' way to express an i'm-way-above-such-a-thing pose. We are talking about a tool, no more.<br /> <br /> It seems people who have expressed their opinion about sharpness not being important for their photography and photographs has really upset you. To the point of suggesting it's a "peeing contest." Were your feelings really that hurt? Why?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Rodeo Joe's comment about witnessing truly sharp images by trying something like the Samyang 135/f2 coincides with my own experience. It started with a Canon EF 70-200/f4 IS and intensified when I added the EF 500mm f/4L IS II to my bag (it will break the bank, BTW). You see sharpness, accurate colors and contrast in the Raw image that leaps off the screen. You don't have to go to 100% to see it. Once you've seen that, you look for higher resolution bodies to take further advantage of the possibilities in finding subjects with great details to display.</p>

<p>Now that I've witnessed the sharpness, I go for it in every shot. I'm not shooting Kodacrhome anymore and I get great results at ISO 100, f/8 and just about any shutter speed over 1/25-sec. thanks largely to Image Stabilization in my lenses, but also good hand holding technique. I will pull out the tripod and remote release in certain conditions.</p>

<p>Below is a hand-held shot of a Cinque Terra, Italy village, taken hand held from a boat. I shot at ISO 400 to keep the shutter speed up, because I was on a boat, but the detail is still mesmerizing to me. When you view these images on a 60" UHD 4k TV, they blow you away. My wife see it, anyone that looks sees it. (Click through to Flickr if you want to see it on your own monitor, or, better yet, your UHD TV). We're in a different world now, where monitors and TVs now rival printing our work.</p>

<p><a title="Untitled" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm1.staticflickr.com/770/21442804842_41c5425297_c.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="800" height="534" /></a></p>

<p>I'm into realism and details, but I understand why some might prefer less detail and more abstraction. I enjoy looking at that kind of work. However, when I see something that looks like it's intended to be realistic and it's not sharp, I think, "Lazy photographer" or perhaps, "He or she doesn't realize that it isn't sharp" or "He or she doesn't understand how to operate the camera." We've all gone through those phases of development, except maybe, "Lazy photographer."</p>

<p>These days, it's really easy to take sharp images, so why not, unless you're going for some sort of abstraction?</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>David, No one is suggesting unfocused pictures. As an aside, your picture is very pretty and has a lot of details. But it's not much more than a travel snapshot showing a location you visited on a trip. The lighting is flat because it was taken mid day and there's no real point of interest. I think members are trying to make the point that a picture cannot stand on sharpness alone. There has to be content of interest and usually lighting to match especially for landscapes. Making it sharper or adding ever increasing details and pixels will not improve it.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Alan, you correctly assessed my travel image as a travel image, making the best of a compromising situation for photography. I assure you that sharpness does improve it from the point of view of my wife's enjoyment in seeing some place she's visited. I'll never print this, but I will view it on a 60", 4k screen. Unsharp images will detract from that experience. If I'd shot this at a lower ISO, not accounting for the movement of the boat, it would have detracted from the viewing experience. Even in a "documentary" picture, with little or no art intended, sharpness matters to the viewer.</p>

<p>If no one is suggesting unfocused pictures, then what is the OP talking about? Why aren't his pictures sharp? Why isn't he using a tripod or raising the ISO to capture whatever "magical moment" he's trying to capture? He's asking why it's important, but I'd say, why question it when it's so easy to achieve?</p>

<p>My old Canon G7, had a tiny sensor, but produced excellent prints, so long as 18" or 20" was all you needed. Each piece of equipment has its limits and our budgets all have there limits, but within those limits, shouldn't generally be striving for the sharpest pictures that we can achieve, except when we're going for a special or abstract effect?</p>

[GerrySiegel]

We still have trouble describing sharpness. Sharp as a tack. Razor sharp. Blu Ray sharp? Not the latter, not Blu Ray sharp, you notice. Blu Ray has not been successful. If we are watching movies on handheld devices like iPADs, then seeking more sharpness becomes a non issue. As for music, earbuds do not reveal subtlety of tones. Maybe we have photophiles as we have audiophiles. It takes all kinds is all.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Where and when did we show that we had such troubles, Gerry?

[AlanKlein]

Dave, I think you may be confusing resolution with

sharpness. Sharpness could be better with 8

megabytes than 24 megabytes. The 24 megabytes

would have more resolution, more details, although

not as focused as well.

 

I agree that hdtv is nice for displaying photos, can't

wait until I get an uhdtv. But even the latter takes an

8mb image vs. 2mb for the former. So an old p&s

would satisfy the tvs, pixel resolution wise.. I do

agree with you that lots of pixels are good for cropping

and large prints. But there again we're talking about

resolution not critical focus or sharpness.

[dcstep]

<p>No Alan, I'm not confusing sharpness with resolution. I can see when a 10MP image is sharp just as well as a 50MP. I've lived with both.</p>

<p>If an image isn't sharp, either the focus is off, there was camera or subject movement, or the lens or body has shortcomings. </p>

<p>Some are discussing sharpness as if it's an aesthetic choice as a general matter. Yeah, I know that lots and lots of Lensbaby lenses get sold that are designed not to be sharp. Also, we all use bokeh, it's also in style to use a slow shutter speed for waterfalls and waves breaking on rocks and who hasn't zoomed their zoom lens while taking a shot at a slow shutter speed.</p>

<p>Outside of these intentional sorts of distortion and others that I didn't mention, why are unsharp images acceptable? Why does the OP think that pursuing sharpness is an absurdity? It's not that hard to achieve in-camera. Could it be that he's got his AF is some servo mode when he should be in single-shot mode? Could it be that his ISOs are too low and he's not on a tripod? Maybe he could show us a "good enough" shot.</p>

<p>We've taken his question and wandered down several possible roads, but he hasn't been back to clarify or redirect. </p>

<p>Resolution is nothing, without sharpness. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>David's use of sharpness to accentuate the immersive effect has creative and aesthetic value even on travel shots IF and only IF the level of sharpness and composition doesn't distract from the effect. I viewed the Italy scene at a much larger size on his flickr page and have to commend him on his skillful application of micro fine sharpening on such a highly textured landscape. Not an easy task. Make it too sharp and the objects in the scene look miniature, not sharp enough and then it becomes a boring tourist shot.</p>

<p>There have been very successful photographers and painters that applied this hyper realism to enhance or drive home this immersive effect, some have become famous for doing so (David Hockney & Chuck Close). The look has been described as trippy and surreal but usually of scenes depicting mundane objects or scenes to aid in not distracting from the effect.</p>

<p>A tourist travel shot may be a subject that distracts from the effect if it's too obvious that it's a tourist shot but that can be very difficult to register to the viewer and control. Like David indicated the effect and thus the creative intent can only be appreciated and seen on a large high rez screen which points to how technology is allowing artists to push the creative envelope into other and newer territories on a psychological level.</p>

<p>It's just the artist has to make that intent register to the viewer in order to say something new about a tourist shot. Again, not an easy task.<br>

</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Some are discussing sharpness as if it's an aesthetic choice as a general matter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yeah, Walker Evans is an example of a loser who thought sharpness was an aesthetic choice - http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online/search/265594</p>