When is a lens TOO sharp?

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>I must say, that my experience with the CZ24-70 now that it is my general mid range lens is that it produces very unflattering people shots. It is so sharp and clinical that even at larger apertures, you can see every winkle, zit and pore.</p>

<p>It just goes to show that sharpness is not everything in a photo.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>In a portrait you often want the eyes to be super sharp, and a more defocused look on the skin. I guess you can get this effect by working with layers in Photoshop.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>The more and more I evolve into photography, especially digital photography, the more I learn that this thing called 'sharpness' is not very important to me at all. Auto-focus accuracy, auto-focus speed, the size of a lens, the build quality of a lens. Those things are far more important for my use, after that, sharpness is just down to technique (both in camera and out of camera).</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Studies have shown that we like their own images optimized, and we like other people's images accurate. Go figure!</p>

<p>Time for <strong><em>skin filters</em> </strong> --</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Carl Zeiss Softar </strong> </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=zeiss+softar">http://www.google.com/search?q=zeiss+softar</a> <strong><br /> </strong> </li>

</ul>

<p>or</p>

<ul>

<li><strong>Minolta Portrayer S</strong> (soft) and </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><strong>Minolta Portrayer P</strong> (pimples -- I'm not kidding, this filter was a school photographer's salvation, think of it as your zit filter, as it softens the red "channel")!</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=minolta+portrayer">http://www.google.com/search?q=minolta+portrayer</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>Too bad <strong>DxO </strong> doesn't have an equivalent. I searched for "soft focus" at their site and it <em>discarded </em> the word "focus" WOW! They do have this link, perhaps we can tune "softness" for more, not less?</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/lens_softness">http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/dxo_optics_pro/optics_geometry_corrections/lens_softness</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>There are a gazillion tools for Photoshop that address our desire to compliment by making age related information disappear as if we were photographing a child with no age experience to show! <br>

<strong>Google search for [photoshop skin ...]</strong> and Google will suggest that other's have also searched for "photoshop skin" and:</p>

<ul>

<li>smoothing</li>

<li>retouching</li>

<li>color</li>

<li>tone</li>

<li>texture</li>

<li>brushes</li>

<li>glow</li>

<li>retouch</li>

</ul>

<p>... and so much more out there!</p>

<p>Try <strong>Portrait Professional </strong> for headshots -- amazing, and free demo:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.portraitprofessional.com/">http://www.portraitprofessional.com/</a> </li>

</ul>

<p>----------</p>

<p>My mother's only words when looking at a portrait I made of her was,</p>

<ul>

<li>"<em>You're no flatterer!</em> "</li>

</ul>

<p>----------</p>

<p>Inspirational observation born from your experience, Richard --</p>

<ul>

<li>"<em>... this thing called 'sharpness' is not very important ...</em> " </li>

</ul>

<p>That's why I'm <em>here </em> instead of "<em>there</em> " -- because the moderator "<em>there</em> " took umbrage at such equivalent comments from me. </p>

<p>My most important criteria is <em><strong>close focus</strong> </em> , not sharpness. <em><strong>Focal range</strong> </em> (zoom) is next important on my criteria, not sharpness. In other words, I want a lens to allow me to capture anything I see, really close or really far. I presume infinity is in there somewhere with all lenses, but close focus is a forgotten offering for some lens makers.</p>

<p>.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>"I’m always amused by the idea that certain people have about technique, which translate into an immoderate taste for the sharpness of the image. It is a passion for detail, for perfection, or do they hope to get closer to reality with this trompe I’oeil? They are, by the way, as far away from the real issues as other generations of photographers were when they obscured their subject in soft-focus effects." -Henri Cartier-Bresson<br>

<br /> </p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>Turn down the incamera sharpening if you have JPEG output or do not sharpen raw images.<br>

Then there is photoshop.</p>

 

[robert_paul1]

<p>Too many people today, focus (pun intended) on the sharpness of the picture and overlook the contents of the image. However, I read an interview in my morning paper about the most famous picture taken twenty years ago, during the pro-democracy protests at Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China.</p>

<p>The picture is of a lone, unidentified man standing in front of four tanks that were moving into Tiananmen Square, prior to the massacre of the people protesting for more freedom in their country.</p>

<p>The picture was taken by Jeff Widener, who at the time, worked for AP. Today, he works for the Honolulu Advertiser as a staff photographer, and on the 20th anniversary of the "June 4 massacre," he talks about the picture.</p>

<p><strong>"To this day, it's the only photograph hanging on my wall."</strong><br>

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

<strong>"I still see it as the shot I almost blew. I had miscalculated the shutter speed. Of the three images I took, only one came out - it was kind of blurry, but apparently clear enough to be used in more than 6,000 publications around the world the next day."</strong></p>

<p>Jeff Widener goes onto talk about how he had to hide his camera in his Levis jacket, and stuff the film in his underwear. You can read the whole article at the following address-</p>

<p>http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200990603092</p>

<p>I wonder if the 'blurry' picture would be good enough in today's sharpness obcessed photographic world.</p>

<p>While the Chinese government has repressed the stories of the slaughter in Tiananmen Square twenty ago, looking to erase the events, and slaughter of innocent people, of June 3-4, 1989, from history, thanks to photographers like Jeff Widener, the world will never forget.</p>

[peterblaise]

<p>.</p>

<p>Good find on the Tiananmen Square story. Inspirational, and put my own photography into "value" perspective quite strongly.</p>

<p>I fond no such " sharpness obsessed photographic world". To the contrary, I find improperly resized pixelated JPGs in the cover of newspapers and magazines. Perhaps the gear collectors are obsessed with penultimate sharpness, as much of photo.net is aimed at that crowd, but we have a lot of image sharing where we can tweak local contrast, but at 96 dpi or less, just what is "sharpness" after all?</p>

<p>.</p>

[robert_paul1]

<p>Pete, my point was that too many people on these forums care less about a pictures contents, and composition, and too much on how sharp it is. If the picture of the lone man standing in front of the tanks, was taken today, you'd probably hear more talk about how unsharp the picture was, or some other technical aspect, rather than how brave the man was to risk his life.</p>

<p>Pictures such as the one taken at Tiananmen, are taken to tell the story of an event in history, and are not works of art. But, because of the impact they have to move people they are just as important.</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>Here is another angle of approach to consider: given your level of photographic ability in a purely artistic sense, why would you not want to maximise image quality? The characters most serious photographers value are not so much sharpness related for its own sake, but rather artistic preferences as exhibited by the sensor/lensfirmware/software system. While some prefer various key aspects such as: strong 3D effect, micro-contrast, large object drawing rather than fine detail rendition, soft/strong overall contrast, colour separation, corner sharpness, many sub-characteristics of bokeh, and so on...but the one thing that has to be present for quasi life-like renditions of the fine details of the natural and built environment, as in landscape or architecture, and especially for large prints, is a threshold quality of acutance.</p>

<p>The over-cute statements of HCB did not stop him using the finest optics of his (or most any other) day in a discreet 35mm rangefinder, though it must be said that dreamy environmental portraiture shot on charismatic B&W film is one genre in which one can get away with fine images that emphasise characteristics other than outright resolution - to a much greater degree than with say, modern digital. Many of HCB's works are exhibited at 16x20 or so, and Leica's characteristic gradual loss of focus with distance from the plane of focus, tonal rendering, highish contrast bokeh and film choice all work harmoniously with his style up at the limit of image quality. The famous subjects do not hurt the endeavour either.</p>

<p>For tripod work of the detailed landscape in particular, I find it ironic, and even perplexing that just now when we have three high Mp DSLRs ushering in the new era of high definition stills from hand cameras, that are almost or approximately satisfying to medium and large format film users, we have such a thread as this one ;-) </p>

<p>Jiun, you would do much better with a camera that was more fit-for-purpose for your needs. I suggest the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D (the old one), or a D3 if you prefer. 12Mp is the sweet spot for such low demand (WRT resolution) subject matter as portraiture; furthermore the noise handling at high ISO means you can set auto ISO to great benefit. Tough that Nikon's premier portrait lens lacks VR and even AF-S at present. The 105/2.5 is perhaps worth a try if you like manual focus. This being a Sony forum, if you thought outside the box, you could give the Zeiss 85mm a whirl, using it at wide apertures for a softer look. You don't mention which body you use, but the A900 has, by all accounts, wonderful highlight handling and many other Zeiss-related advantages for people shots - in contrast to the Nikon and Canon offerings, which nonetheless clearly have their proponents as well, as do all market leaders.</p>

<p> </p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>I'm with you Jiun, the 24-70 is NOT a very flattering lens for portraiture, I'm sticking with any of my Minolta/Minolta ancestry lenses for people pics...grin</p>

[ricardovaste]

<blockquote>

<p>Jiun, you would do much better with a camera that was more fit-for-purpose for your needs. I suggest the Nikon D700 or Canon 5D (the old one), or a D3 if you prefer. 12Mp is the sweet spot for such low demand (WRT resolution) subject matter as portraiture ...<snip></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wo - slow down! Didn't you know it's illegal to say such things in the Sony forum Philip :-). If we are addressing the OP specifically, it's simply the lens, not the camera. ZA glass is very sharp and has a very high micro contrast - it gives you every little detail. Nothing to do with his camera (A700). I use the A700 and get quite soft, low contrast results (not saying that's the 'right' way, just saying that's how I often prefer portraits). That's because, like Wayne, I usually use Minolta glass for portraits.</p>

<p>A great post by the way Robert - a lesson for us all in there I think.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>Anyone here use the Sony 35 f1.4 G? I do, and it is a lethally sharp piece of glass, just as sharp maybe moreso than the 24-70. But it is also a tremendously sympathetic portrait lens. Maybe someone could explain to me why the 24-70 isn't. I don't think 'sharpness' is the issue here.......</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>It's to do with a much lower micro contrast Wayne. It's a similar performer to the 85/1.4 Minolta, so I can relate to it.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>This is my idea of what a sharp picture should look like. A900 with Sony(Minolta) 135mmSTF. Try and get that out of any Zeiss glass.....</p><div></div>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Minolta 85/1.4 & A700 - sharp, detailed, but flattering IMO.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3408/3548719081_36945d4be5_o.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="640" /></p>

[mattbarber]

<p>What about the 100mm Soft Focus (wasn't there a Sony version? and somewhere you can still find the Minolta verison, maybe)?<br>

Link: <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=74">http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=74</a> (minolta 100 SF info)</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>Strange Matthew, gets great reviews on Dyxum yet in my experience on various minolta fora over the years, the 100mm softfocus has tended to be treated as a bit of a gimmick lens......</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>I think in the digital age, there is very little use for such a lens. I don't doubt that the effect of the lens can't be replicated precisely with PP, but it's whether it's worth having a lens specifically for that use is worth it when its so simple to do it in PP, where you also have more freedom.</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Hey Wayne, you have the STF? I though about getting it over the 135 f2.8 but then I would have to change my focusing screen as well. So for now, my next acquisition will be the 135 f2.8<br>

BTW Richard, I am still interested see the bokeh of you sigma 70-200 which you say is better then the 85 1.4, I simply can't believe it!</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>Yes, I have......it aint the easiest lens to use, that's for sure.....grin</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>Err...correct that to my next acquisition will be the 135 f1.8</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>LOL You will have to be patient Jiun ;-). I haven't taken any portraits for a while (which is what I mainly use the lenses for). They're two very different lenses of course, I just think people can sometimes talk up a lens too much was my point. The 85mm's bokeh can have quite hard edges at times, but again it doesn't do the doughnutty thing so it's still attractive if that's what you like. The 70-200 is definately 'smoother' though. Again, this is only noticeable in extreme conditions and don't actually detract from a photo.</p>

[wayne_naughton]

<p>Interesting thread in APUG. Tend to agree.....</p>

<p>http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/62998-too-sharp.htm</p>

[eddevlam]

<p>Indeed the Zeiss 24-70 2.8 can be sharp. I like that. Go for a Sigma or Tamron if you want soft pictures. Saves a lot of money too. <a href="../photodb/photo?photo_id=9110394">http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9110394</a>. At f2.8.</p><div></div>