Sharp or Knot Sharp?

[Arthur Morris]

I originally posted this image herein Avian. Most suggested that it needed to be darker. This is my repost. So why am I posting it as a new thread? In the original post, Andreas Liedmann, while trashing most everything about the image, wrote in pert:

At least as posted the image is not sharp.

I was puzzled by that comment, especially when others agreed about it not being sharp. Please see the unsharpened 100% crop in the next pane.

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Here is an unsharpened 100 percent crop of the master file, the optimized TIFF. Aside from the motion blur on the foot, it certainly looks sharp enough to me. How does it look to you?

Please understand that I am not being defensive here; I am -- after 38+ years, trying to learn.

thanks with love, artie

[Bill Dix]

Certainly looks sharp to me, at least around the head, where it counts most. Sharpness seems to fall off elsewhere from DOF and motion. Love the light, pose, foamy surf.

[Jonathan Ashton]

Artie, it looks well focused to me, i.e. sharp, the right leg is of course moving but that is just fine - you have captured a behavioural pose. I like the reflection in the water on the beach.
This image looks pretty much the same or very similar to your last pane #11 image to me. I like it.

I am sure Andreas needs no defensive comments from me and of course neither would you but I am sensing that there is a certain amount of tetchiness creeping into recent posts. I have mentioned similar in previous different posts (and also in the Mod Forum).
I am not seeking to instruct to anyone in any way but maybe a little moderation in commenting style may be a reasonable consideration. I apologise to all concerned if I appear to be speaking out of tune, or exceeding my position as a Moderator, I am merely trying to keep things pleasant.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, it looks well focused to me, i.e. sharp, the right leg is of course moving but that is just fine - you have captured a behavioural pose. I like the reflection in the water on the beach.
This image looks pretty much the same or very similar to your last pane #11 image to me. I like it.

I am sure Andreas needs no defensive comments from me and of course neither would you but I am sensing that there is a certain amount of tetchiness creeping into recent posts. I have mentioned similar in previous different posts (and also in the Mod Forum).
I am not seeking to instruct to anyone in any way but maybe a little moderation in commenting style may be a reasonable consideration. I apologise to all concerned if I appear to be speaking out of tune, or exceeding my position as a Moderator, I am merely trying to keep things pleasant.

Jon, With all due respect, it helps to read what I wrote: I originally posted this image here in Avian.

I have no problem with folks not liking an image, but if an image is very sharp as this one is, I cannot understand Andreas motivation for saying otherwise. And as is often the case, once one person states something, others who follow are often quick to agree :)

with love, artie

[Colin Driscoll]

The OP is sharp where it matters. What the close crop shows is the loss in detail that occurs as a consequence of saving for web at 600kb.

[Arthur Morris]

The OP is sharp where it matters. What the close crop shows is the loss in detail that occurs as a consequence of saving for web at 600kb.

Thanks Colin. I am not sure about the "loss of detail" that you mention. Remember that at the tight crop is unsharpened. Do you look at your images at 100% often?

with love, artie

[Mike Poole]

Certainly looks razor sharp on my posh 32" 4k screen at home! Probably even better on a shiny MacBook screen.

I love this site, it's helped me enormously, and I do fully appreciate the importance of the tech side of our genre.

However, I do feel we often lose our way by trying to squeeze every ounce of detail out of every frame whilst ignoring possible comments on light, composition, environmental interests etc, all because (for instance) the tertial feather on the left wing has a reading of 252/253/252 and should have been lowered in post. Just an example, obviously not for this frame.

As for the shot, personally I love the moving leg, half reflection and the bubbles in the water

Mike

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Artie, not sure if this helps, but when viewed at 100% (6.4 x 4.4 inches, 1920px wide at 300ppi) the image is super sharp with good detail and clarity, looks the 'Bees knees'. When viewed on line to me the IQ has dropped as the image must be scaled up, as 1920px isn't beyond 6x4 inches, yet it fills my new 16 inch MB pro screen and beyond, fits better on the monitors at home. Even when taken into Lr or PS as is, at 100% the exposure looks perfect, great spread of data across the histogram, nothing clipped, with a nice space at either end of the histogram, good Tonal range across the board, but this is at 6.4 x 4.4 inches.

Steve

[Steve Kaluski]

Certainly looks razor sharp on my posh 32" 4k screen at home! Probably even better on a shiny MacBook screen.

Hi Mike it will do on the 319, but even Eizo admit that 4k are based more for Video than stills, albeit a very small margin between them now. Personally I not a great fan of these high gloss screens, the images do look punchy, sharp and vivid, but is nature?

I'm currently viewing on the 16 inch M1 Max and the colours do looks very cool, but will have to wait till July to get the new Eizo monitors once launch in June, fingers crossed. Glad you are enjoying it.

[Arthur Morris]

Certainly looks razor sharp on my posh 32" 4k screen at home! Probably even better on a shiny MacBook screen.

I love this site, it's helped me enormously, and I do fully appreciate the importance of the tech side of our genre.

However, I do feel we often lose our way by trying to squeeze every ounce of detail out of every frame whilst ignoring possible comments on light, composition, environmental interests etc, all because (for instance) the tertial feather on the left wing has a reading of 252/253/252 and should have been lowered in post. Just an example, obviously not for this frame.

As for the shot, personally I love the moving leg, half reflection and the bubbles in the water

Mike

Thanks a stack, Mike. I agree that more emphasis here should be on the artistic merits of an image and less on what I see as the technical BS. Here is another example: Perhaps you might add 1 point of MAGENTA to the image.

much love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, not sure if this helps, but when viewed at 100% (6.4 x 4.4 inches, 1920px wide at 300ppi) the image is super sharp with good detail and clarity, looks the 'Bees knees'. When viewed on line to me the IQ has dropped as the image must be scaled up, as 1920px isn't beyond 6x4 inches, yet it fills my new 16 inch MB pro screen and beyond, fits better on the monitors at home. Even when taken into Lr or PS as is, at 100% the exposure looks perfect, great spread of data across the histogram, nothing clipped, with a nice space at either end of the histogram, good Tonal range across the board, but this is at 6.4 x 4.4 inches.

Steve

Thanks, Steve. I am not a very technical person, but if I get what you are saying, is that the image can look very different on various monitors. That is very helpful. I am on a 16" MacBook Pro M1 and I dod not post anything that does not look quite excellent. Thus I was surprised by Andreas' total trashing of the originally posted image -- especially his "not sharp" comment.

with love, artie

[Steve Kaluski]

Hi Artie, I too don't fall into 'Arash's Camp of Technology' but it would be good to know when uploading an image, does 'the system' scale up the image, as 1920px at 100% is only 6.4 inches, but when viewed as I said it's far bigger?

Now Artie a question for you, it appears we both have the new, blazingly fast, MBP 16in, however.... when you go to the System Prefs > Display > you can set the Display/screen to various pre sets to view, it offers P3 - 65 Photography, have you changes yours and if so, what too or kept it to Factory settings? Personally I much prefer to do ALL PP work on a desktop monitor, as a laptop screen can change the look of a file just by the tilt of the head or screen as you know, but not it's sharpness IMHO, if that makes sense.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Certainly sharp, and I'm liking the subtly darker version here. The colours do look richer as I thought they would. I guess you could reduce one point of cyans (just joking!)

[dankearl]

Sharp enough but the OOF foot ruins it for me and it looks like you tried to sharpen it?

[Joseph Przybyla]

Hi Artie... I thought your first post of this image was sharp and so it this one. I knew you did it but wonder why you do all your post processing of images on a laptop. I would guess a habit from being away from home/office so often. Anyways, good solid image, thank you for sharing.

[Brian Sump]

Artie, as mentioned, the first go round did feel a touch soft to my eyes.

This one does appear nicely sharpened and I also like the color punch as well.

[Arthur Morris]

Artie, as mentioned, the first go round did feel a touch soft to my eyes.

This one does appear nicely sharpened and I also like the color punch as well.

Thanks for re-visiting. The only difference with the repost was darkening it. Sizing and sharpening were identical :)

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie... I thought your first post of this image was sharp and so it this one. I knew you did it but wonder why you do all your post processing of images on a laptop. I would guess a habit from being away from home/office so often. Anyways, good solid image, thank you for sharing.

Thanks, Joe. Yes, I travel a lot. And I find the laptop super convenient (even though Arash frowns upon it). Many of my digital images that have been processed on this or that laptop have been honored in international contests ...

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Sharp enough but the OOF foot ruins it for me and it looks like you tried to sharpen it?

Hi Dan, Did not sharpen the foot. Some folks love the blurred foot, others hate it. No worries there. I like it :)

with love, artie

[Arthur Morris]

Hi Artie, I too don't fall into 'Arash's Camp of Technology' but it would be good to know when uploading an image, does 'the system' scale up the image, as 1920px at 100% is only 6.4 inches, but when viewed as I said it's far bigger?

Now Artie a question for you, it appears we both have the new, blazingly fast, MBP 16in, however.... when you go to the System Prefs > Display > you can set the Display/screen to various pre sets to view, it offers P3 - 65 Photography, have you changes yours and if so, what too or kept it to Factory settings? Personally I much prefer to do ALL PP work on a desktop monitor, as a laptop screen can change the look of a file just by the tilt of the head or screen as you know, but not it's sharpness IMHO, if that makes sense.

Hi Steve,

I have no idea. I have not changed anything. WHAT IS P3 - 65 Photography???

Ignorant of the technical stuff as always :)

with love, a

[Arthur Morris]

Certainly sharp, and I'm liking the subtly darker version here. The colours do look richer as I thought they would. I guess you could reduce one point of cyans (just joking!)

I think maybe two points of CYAN :). That one made me laugh!

with love, artie