What is "SHARP ENOUGH" in your opinion?

[Ofer Levy]

Hi all,
I never thought I will post this question as for me there is no dilemma but I am interested to hear what you all think as maybe I should revise my attitude...:2
When I check an image in the camera and I see even slight softness - I delete it on the spot in order to avoid the heart ache when watching in on the computer. Many shots which look perfect in camera and show signs of softness when viewd at 100% go straight to the bin. (It doesn't matter how good or rare the images are)
What do you all think - what is "sharp enough"....?

Thanks,
Ofer

[Desmond Chan]

Many shots which look perfect in camera and show signs of softness when viewd at 100% go straight to the bin.

That should tell you something.

(It doesn't matter how good or rare the images are)
What do you all think - what is "sharp enough"....?

You said: "sharp enough". You should then ask: "Sharp enough for what?" My answer would be: "Depends on how you are going to use your images and how they will be viewed."


I understand that some people will not accept anything less than tack sharp when viewed at 100% on the screen.

Allow me to paraphrase something I was told recently: "Everything when looks close enough looks messy"

I think Artie once said somewhere on BPN that as long as somebody is willing to pay for the image, it's sharp enough.

[Ofer Levy]

That should tell you something.



You said: "sharp enough". You should then ask: "Sharp enough for what?" My answer would be: "Depends on how you are going to use your images and how they will be viewed."


I understand that some people will not accept anything less than tack sharp when viewed at 100% on the screen.

Allow me to paraphrase something I was told recently: "Everything when looks close enough looks messy"

I think Artie once said somewhere on BPN that as long as somebody is willing to pay for the image, it's sharp enough.

All the photos I keep and/or presented in here, when viewd at 100% or even 200% still look great and anything but "messy"...
As to Artie's comment - I respect how he sees things and would like to hear from others.

[Vivaldo Damilano]

Hey Ofer don't be so hard on youself I for one won't bin a shot that is slightly OOF, if I think it worth keeping. I do agree that the best images are the very sharp ones but sometimes one that slightly out can still look good with a bit of PS and most people that don't have a trained eye will not notice the difference. I also never delete in camera, as I have missed to many shots.

[Grant Eldridge]

I'll delete the obvious screw ups in camera (of which there are plenty) but generally review in post. Somewhat similar to you I delete almost everything that is out of focus with one caveat. If it is something I don't see very often or a gesture that overrides the technical merits of the image I'll keep it (for example I have an image of a bald eagle taking a river otter which is a bit soft). Keeping everything in these digital days turns into a storage nightmare. I really don't need 20 images of the same bird in the same pose because I leaned on the shutter, I'll pick the sharpest and ditch the rest.

[Don Lacy]

Ofer where do you have the sharpness set at in camera for viewing jpegs. I personally do not edit in the field I want to view my images on screen before making a finale judgement.

[arash_hazeghi]

Ofer,
I am very much like you. I delete the soft images (no matter how good/rare they are otherwise), either in camera or at my computer. I just don't enjoy photos that are even slightly soft. For me photography is a passion and something that I do for pleasure and in which I seek perfection, so if I don't enjoy a photo it goes to the bin :)

It is a personal thing, some people can't even tell if a photo is sharply focused or not, so do whatever brings you most satisfaction. only you can answer this question :D

[Doug Brown]

I love a sharply focused image as much as the next guy. But if a photo has something special but isn't tack-sharp, I'll still keep it.

[Duane Noblick]

I never delete in the field and I don't worry if I see an image oof on the computer that eventually gets deleted because I know I'll have another opportunity in the future. I don't travel to far away places photographing rare species either so it's easy for me to approach it this way.

I've also found that what I like as far as sharpness/overall image isn't what sells...I still haven't figured out why people buy the prints they do off of my website..most aren't what I would hang in my own home.

Everything that is suggested on this site as far as sharpness, composition, head angle etc is totally opposite of what sells...go figure.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I tend to be pretty hard on my sharpness evaluation (among other things), and I also have the very bad habit of having the tendency to delete images in the field (the ones that are obviously trash i.e. very soft, bad wing position, bad HA,). Very bad urge that I am slowly getting better at controlling. I do not delete the "borderline" sharp images in-camera though...I prefer to look at them on the computer, especially if the pose is very good.

Ofer, I can relate to the heartbreak of seeing an otherwise spectacular image spoiled by not being perfectly sharp!! I cannot stand the feeling of clicking on an image in great anticipation, only to see some softness to the important areas!!:eek:

Anything on my website is 100% sharp, and 99.3% of what I post on BPN is 100% sharp I do keep some slgihtly softer images for personal purposes, but that is rather rare. I've intentionally deleted many images that I know many others would not have.

[Dan Brown]

I keep alot of less than sharp images for record shots, but with my crummy lens, ALL of my shots would probably end up in Ofer's trash bin Maybe one day I will be able to get a "big boy" lens!

I don't delete in the actual "field" because I've missed shots due to "chimping". But, at lunch or in transit (if I am not driving) I do delete the obvious garbage.

[Magnus Thornberg]

I keep to many in the field and to often have to see them on the screen and wish i had deleted it before:)
I am going to do my best to explain one thing that i see many times here in Sweden. I am going to do my best to write on your language so you can understand:)

THERE is one question i have to you guys! Is sharp, sharp for everyone?
I follow this site every day and heck, many times every day:) I think i know what sharp is but many times when i comment an image in Swedish forums that are not sharp many say the opposite! I have had many discussion with both pro and amateur photographer about this! Many times i think they do not see the image with there glasses on:)

I hope you understand what i thinking about:)

Sharp is not sharp for everyone that is sure.....When i look at images made by Swedish photographers i compare them to the images here in this forum!

/regards Magnus

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Ofer, I am like you....dont like soft images....dont like to make large crops. But I dont delete them as aggressively in-the-field as you say you do. I have lost lot of shots because of chimping :-) I have now got into the habit of doing one delete round in the car after the shoot....then do a quick one at home( love the reject tag in DPP). Then over time, I am always going through older folders and doing deletes. I hate clutter in my hard drive.

If the image is nothing special and soft, it goes to the trash can...if not rightaway...some time down the line. It does not even get processed. But then there are many slightly soft images that I for some reason, I've like...then I make a judgement on how much such an image can be salvaged.

Note that when you are looking at 100% view, its like looking at a billboard from 5 feet. There are many images that look soft( slight shake, slight focus issue, some subject movement) at 100% that look OK when resized and then the bird sharpened. They can be printed quite well too. Same w.r.t noise.

Size and viewing distance matters. One should not be judging sharpness of a 16X20 print from 1 foot away. Put it on a wall and see if it looks sharp enough from 8 feet away. In the digital era, we are looking at very large sizes from a very short distance. I used to shoot slides and project them at home. I dont ever recollect going 2 feet close to the screen and passing a judgement.

Dont get me wrong....I love 100% view and do delete many based on that...but I think it is wise to keep the ones that can be salvaged in the "desired output form"...print, web-site, forum...whatever it may be.

My 2 cents.

[Roger Clark]

In my opinion, people get too hung up on sharpness. Years ago we had 3-megapixel cameras, which today the images would not be considered sharp, then we got 6-megapixels cameras and those images today would not be considered sharp. etc.

Image content trumps resolution. Without spectacular content, it matters little how sharp an image is.

Having said that, I like sharp images as much as everyone else. But I'd rather have a slightly soft image of a beautiful subject in great light than a tack-sharp boring subject in poor light. My best example of such a situation is my egret in flight image:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...ght.f-600.html
The above image was printed full page in Natures Best (fall 2004, page 21). It is a 3 megapixel crop from a 6 megapixel camera. I have sold 16 x 18 inch prints in galleries. Sure I would like the image to be captured with 20+ megapixels and be sharper, but the image I have is worth 100,000 others without that content.

Regarding viewing large prints from a distance, I disagree. Viewing a large sharp print up close is a major contributor to the WOW factor. See my web article on wow factor:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/megapixel_myth/
I've watched people move within a foot of large 30x40-inch prints to examine the detail.

Roger

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks for your input guys!
Roger,
“In my opinion, people get too hung up on sharpness. Years ago we had 3-megapixel cameras, which today the images would not be considered sharp, then we got 6-megapixels cameras and those images today would not be considered sharp”
Although you are my Guru when it comes to technical issues I will have to disagree on that…
Even the 6 mega pixels cameras could produce perfectly sharp images.

“Image content trumps resolution. Without spectacular content, it matters little how sharp an image is.”

I agree, BUT, without excellent techs (particularly sharpness) an image cannot be considered spectacular IMO unless it is all about blurred motion etc.

“But I'd rather have a slightly soft image of a beautiful subject in great light than a tack-sharp boring subject in poor light.”
The third option is a beautiful subject in beautiful light AND tack - sharp…
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For me the technical aspects of an image – especially sharpness, have to be perfect as mentioned.

The way I see it - presenting a soft image is like presenting a beautiful poem full of spelling mistakes....(which I often have....)

[Jay Gould]

In a word - ouch!

Making the decision in camera is to ignore all of the available digital tools.

We are constantly told to ETTR; and we are constantly told that while all of the information is contained in the RAW image, that information is not going to be properly seen on a 3" LCD depicting a JPEG that is truly ETTR.

While I agree with everything you have said pertaining to final output - we do want to present 100% tack sharp images UNLESS it is intentionally soft for a variety of reasons (e.g., slow silky water and clouds), with borderline images that decision should await the calibrated monitor and the available digital tools.

[Ofer Levy]

Making the decision in camera is to ignore all of the available digital tools.

.

Thanks for your input Jay!
No digital tool can make a soft image sharp - sad but true.....

[Desmond Chan]

No digital tool can make a soft image sharp - sad but true.....

The subject can be in focus but still does not look sharp in a photo.

[Roger Clark]

Thanks for your input guys!
Roger,
“In my opinion, people get too hung up on sharpness. Years ago we had 3-megapixel cameras, which today the images would not be considered sharp, then we got 6-megapixels cameras and those images today would not be considered sharp”
Although you are my Guru when it comes to technical issues I will have to disagree on that…
Even the 6 mega pixels cameras could produce perfectly sharp images.

Hi Ofer,
I'm glad you disagree, because I too don't agree. I was making a statement about what would probably be accepted here. For example, there have been threads about how much crop is acceptable. Is a 3 megapixel crop from a 16 megapixel image OK? If I remember correctly, most said no as the resulting image would be too soft.

Would not a 3 megapixel image printed at 8x10 (200 pixels per inch) appear soft?
How about a 3-megapixel image printed at 16x20 (100 pixels per inch)? To me, both of these are soft. But image content is more important than a little soft. Thus my argument that if an image has compelling content, then an image printed at 100 ppi is more than just "sharp enough."

“Image content trumps resolution. Without spectacular content, it matters little how sharp an image is.”

I agree, BUT, without excellent techs (particularly sharpness) an image cannot be considered spectacular IMO unless it is all about blurred motion etc.

But this is in contrast to what you say above. Did you look at the 3-megapixel image I referenced? While a 3-megapixel image may be sharp pixel to pixel, is will be soft when enlarged to 8x10 or larger, and by some standards, sharp only to 5x7 inches.

If we only talk about web images, they can be sharp at the less than one megapixel size.
But different monitors will show images differently, so sharp on one monitor will appear soft on another.

“But I'd rather have a slightly soft image of a beautiful subject in great light than a tack-sharp boring subject in poor light.”
The third option is a beautiful subject in beautiful light AND tack - sharp…
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. For me the technical aspects of an image – especially sharpness, have to be perfect as mentioned.

Your question was "What is sharp enough." I gave my opinion. Are we now moving the goal posts to only absolute perfection (whatever that means) is the only sharp enough? I don't think there are right or wrong answers here. People have different opinions and that is fine. Sure I would like every image to have sharp 200+ megapixel detail of compelling subjects, but for many subjects it is not possible (e.g. wildlife action). For reference, I do make 200+ megapixel images with mosaics, because for my landscape work, a single DSLR image does not produce the sharpness I want.

The way I see it - presenting a soft image is like presenting a beautiful poem full of spelling mistakes....(which I often have....)

I would describe it as the beautiful poem is written in a courier font, which may not be elegant, but the content is still there, and that is what matters. A better font is secondary to the content. Similarly, in my opinion, image content, including the subject, the composition, and the lighting are more important than sharpness. Of course it is great when sharpness is there too--the WOW factor. But in my opinion, WOW factor is image content first and sharpness second.

Roger

[Ofer Levy]

Sure I would like every image to have sharp 200+ megapixel detail of compelling subjects, but for many subjects it is not possible (e.g. wildlife action).

Thanks Roger, as I have said we have to agree to disagree which is fine. However, as regards to your statement above that wildlife action cannot be captured sharp - I am not sure on what you base this assumption. It is our responsibility as nature photographers to use the amazing technology which very clever people have created to capture nature as it is – sharp - not soft.

I have seen many amazing wildlife action shots which are VERY sharp as they should be with no compromise on quality.

With shutter speed as high as 1/8000, relatively clean files at high ISO, amazingly sharp and optically superb lenses - we should be able to deliver sharp images and not choose the easy way and claim that this is not possible. It is not easy for sure but definitely possible.

I totally agree with you that there is no right and wrong and everyone has his/hers standards. This is only my opinion and this is how I approach my photography - if an image is not very sharp - it will not be printed/presented on the web/sold or even just kept.
The fact that people will buy a soft image or even print a soft image in fancy magazines means nothing to me. People buy and print all kind of things…..

[Geoff Warnock]

Nicely put Roger, and I agree entirely.

A correlation between exacting technical details and contest wins/sales would be quite interesting I think, as I have seen all too often that non-photographers care little for perfect sharpness, exposure and composition, but go directly for content. When they can be offered all in one image of course... even better.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

Regarding viewing large prints from a distance, I disagree. Viewing a large sharp print up close is a major contributor to the WOW factor. See my web article on wow factor:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/megapixel_myth/
I've watched people move within a foot of large 30x40-inch prints to examine the detail.

Roger

Roger, of course there is WOW factor in details. agree there fully. The question Ofer asked was 'should we delete a soft shot'. My answer is 'no, if its a good photo that can salvaged in the output form. Delete if there is nothing special'. Yes, for lack of great details, it will not win contests or make it to galleries in the current era.

I think an example will be good at this point of discussion. I missed critical AF for this shot and hence it came out a bit soft. But I dont like to delete such shots as they can definitely be salvaged. It might not look good in large print but looks good on web and if processed properly, will look good in mid sized prints. I havent spent a lot of time on processing this one....I think it can be made even better...:-)

100% crop with 0 sharpening in DPP. I consider this soft.



some sharpening in DPP, resized and then USM. This is in-camera horizontal...so quite a big crop in my book.



Ofer, Arash, I know this probably will not meet your standards :-) I wont say it is one my better shots either... but definitely not something I'd delete :-)

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

And just for comparison sake, here's what I consider critically sharp. 100% crop with 0 sharpening in DPP.

[Ofer Levy]

Kaustubh, I guess I will have to disagree with you too..... I think this image is sharp enough as presented after processing....

I am not sure that we can expect seeing a tack sharp image when viewed on DPP with 0 sharpening. Especially when working with converters and in 20-30 meters distance. This is more of a limitation of our equipment and not bad technique.

I am referring to softness which is caused by bad technique which for me is not acceptable.

I don't recall ever seeing a photo from you that wasn't more than sharp enough for me. (well, only one...)
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...tack?highlight=

[Ofer Levy]

Here is a quote from a friend of mine who is also a bird photographer but not active on the various forums:

"Every person is different, and what they do is personal to themselves.

Industry generally imposes standards that are minimalist, enabling many possibly inferior products to qualify.

With photographs, my point is that it depends entirely on what make the individual happy – some people set extreme standards as a personal challenge – others, more aware of the marketing and financial possibilities, target the public at large – who really do not understand the technicalities of sharpness, composition or anything else, but react to a picture for its impact, and pay money for something that might not, technically be perfect -- and that is how it goes.

The critique forums are a market where people display their goods, some for sale, some want to get the praise and some want to learn and improve."

I guess this is very true and basically there is no point in this discussion....

[Roger Clark]

Thanks Roger, as I have said we have to agree to disagree which is fine. However, as regards to your statement above that wildlife action cannot be captured sharp - I am not sure on what you base this assumption.

Ofer, I said:
"Sure I would like every image to have sharp 200+ megapixel detail of compelling subjects, but for many subjects it is not possible (e.g. wildlife action)."

It is not possible to make sharp images with 200 megapixels of actgion detail simply because there are no 200 megapixels DSLRs. Of course a single frame can be super sharp, but by some standards, that is not a sharp image.

There are many levels of sharpness. There is pixel to pixel sharpness, which can be done with even a 2 pixel camera, but real detail is another matter. When viewing a scene, for example, as our eye wander around the scene taking it all in, we are seeing the equivalent of several hundred megapixels.

Roger

[Ofer Levy]

Thanks Roger, I am not such a technical person so didn't even realize you mention 200 megapixels...
I am only referring to images which are soft due to bad technique - out of focus issues or motion blur issues - not softenss caused by the limitations of the available technology.
The sharpness in the images posted by Kaustub in this thread are perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

[Steve Uffman]

[QUOTE=Ofer Levy;682035]Here is a quote from a friend of mine who is also a bird photographer but not active on the various forums:

"Every person is different, and what they do is personal to themselves.

The critique forums are a market where people display their goods, some for sale, some want to get the praise and some want to learn and improve."


Put me in the 'some want to learn and improve category". Quick background- I have been back at photography as a hobby now for less than two years-but have a very aggressive plan to climb the learning curve. As a successful retired entrepreneur and an active outdoorsman, I have been blessed with resources of health, time, venues, equipment and mentoring that have helped me get to a point where several area businesses and a number of people have asked to buy my photos.

While flattering, that has never been my goal. I simply enjoy the hobby, want to get reasonably proficient-and thus have a rigorous practice schedule where I work on the fundamentals almost daily. As a result, the number of throwaways on a shoot for technical imperfections has gone way down. And I owe a debt for the many mentors that have helped me either by their workshops or their prolific publishing (shout out to Artie). The downside is my keeper rate is now way to high because there is not a glaring technical imperfection that would cause me to delete it.

One of my mentors (C.C. Lockwood) reminded me of this bit of wisdom:

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop." Ansel Adams


I fully understand the objective and the assessment is accurate but have real, very time consuming trouble trying picking the best few. (i.e. just this spring, I have nearly 5000+ technically keeper images of wading birds mating, nesting, building nests, feeding young, capturing prey, wading in flight and yada, yada)



With some of the places, I shoot in Louisiana, there is perhaps a personal vesting in a large number of images because of the difficulty of wading deep into the swamps to obtain them.


But I need to get to the next step. I look to this forum all the time to see what other people post and clearly there are the 5 star, truly unique shots that inspire and I understand-I also understand about HA and yes I have read all the suggested reading many times.


But my question is- when you broke through the barrier ( long time ago for most of you), what did you use to rank order your photos and identify the best few? or simply put, How do you identify a WOW?

[arash_hazeghi]

And just for comparison sake, here's what I consider critically sharp. 100% crop with 0 sharpening in DPP.

Hi Kaustubh,

Having photographs Avocets in similar conditions I have to say that I don't find the above crop tack sharp. I don't think there was a focus issue or any other error on your part. In warm evenings there is usually substantial atmospheric dispersions in the Bayland area due to humidity and water vapor rising from the bay. It can be very frustrating but you can't do much about it.

Here is what you should get in ideal conditions



100% crop DPP sharpness=0 EOS 1D MK4 700mm f/5.6 (this was with the older TC MKII) 1/2000sec ISO 800 handhold.

[Sid Garige]

But my question is- when you broke through the barrier ( long time ago for most of you), what did you use to rank order your photos and identify the best few? or simply put, How do you identify a WOW?

Initially your are not sure if you got it or not. When you look at the back of your LCD your heart rate starts going up then you magnify the images look right into the eye and see full details. Then there is this thing that fills your mind and you wont be able to shoot. You keep going back to the same image on LCD. Then finally you decided to call it quits and rush to your computer to check out the image. Then you work for couple of hours trying to take that great image to next level. etc.. etc..

Happened to me couple of times.

[arash_hazeghi]

or simply put, How do you identify a WOW?

When people say a loud WOW when they look at your photos

[Ofer Levy]

Initially your are not sure if you got it or not. When you look at the back of your LCD your heart rate starts going up then you magnify the images look right into the eye and see full details. Then there is this thing that fills your mind and you wont be able to shoot. You keep going back to the same image on LCD. Then finally you decided to call it quits and rush to your computer to check out the image. Then you work for couple of hours trying to take that great image to next level. etc.. etc..

Happened to me couple of times.

Couldn't say it any better - this is it!!!


I do shoot quite a lot and put a lot of effort in the field. If I get one keeper in 3-4 sessions I am very happy. There will be thousands of decent photos with excellent techs but I only keep those ones that have the WOW factor IMO. That doesn't happen often at all....

[Ofer Levy]

When people say a loud WOW when they look at your photos

For me it is when experienced bird photographers say the WOW....

[John Chardine]

I have be lurking in this interesting thread and will offer a couple of additional thoughts:

1. Images are rarely sharp across the entire field. This is due to DoF, spherical aberration etc. Even within the theoretical DoF, critical sharpness is only obtained at the focus point, so even those above who profess to have higher standards that others can only be truly happy at the focal point, unless they too "hold their noses" on sharpness a little bit! This issue though, suggests an addition to Ofer's original question: "What is sharp enough, and what proportion of the image needs to be sharp enough?" I'll answer the last part by saying the it could be a relatively small part of the image depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve.

2. Ofer mentions that "No digital tool can make a soft image sharp - sad but true.....". I would disagree with this. I am sure I could process two similar images, one a little soft, one sharp, using standard Photoshop techniques, either for web presentation say at BPN or for printing, and present them to you in a double blind experiment and you would not be able to reliably tell which one was the soft image. I'll call this the "Turing Test" for sharp images! And the Topaz Infocus tool which deblurs using Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution further extends your ability to make a sharp image out of a soft one.

[Ofer Levy]

I have be lurking in this interesting thread and will offer a couple of additional thoughts:

1. Images are rarely sharp across the entire field. This is due to DoF, spherical aberration etc. Even within the theoretical DoF, critical sharpness is only obtained at the focus point, so even those above who profess to have higher standards that others can only be truly happy at the focal point, unless they too "hold their noses" on sharpness a little bit! This issue though, suggests an addition to Ofer's original question: "What is sharp enough, and what proportion of the image needs to be sharp enough?" I'll answer the last part by saying the it could be a relatively small part of the image depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve.

2. Ofer mentions that "No digital tool can make a soft image sharp - sad but true.....". I would disagree with this. I am sure I could process two similar images, one a little soft, one sharp, using standard Photoshop techniques, either for web presentation say at BPN or for printing, and present them to you in a double blind experiment and you would not be able to reliably tell which one was the soft image. I'll call this the "Turing Test" for sharp images! And the Topaz Infocus tool which deblurs using Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution further extends your ability to make a sharp image out of a soft one.

Thank for your great input John! This software is new to me and I would love to try it.
Will google it and give it a try.
Thanks!

[Chris Ober]

One of my mentors (C.C. Lockwood) reminded me of this bit of wisdom:

"Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a good crop." Ansel Adams

When you're photographing landscapes with large format equipment, I can understand that.

[Desmond Chan]

Thank for your great input John! This software is new to me and I would love to try it.
Will google it and give it a try.
Thanks!

You thought: "No digital tool can make a soft image sharp - sad but true....." likely is because you confuse "focus" with "sharpness". Perhaps you thought they're the same thing? Sharpness is a perception. What looks sharp under one condition may not look sharp under another. That's why I asked:"sharp enough for what?" But, based on your own responses, I gathered that what you wanted to know is how much other would tolerate out-of-focus shots, whether many other do what you do to their out-of-focus shots, and whether they delete shots in the field, etc.

You cannot change what is not in focus focused again, but you can make what is not in focus looks sharp in the final presentation.

By the way, if you really, really have a shot of some really, really rare bird or animal, that the chances of seeing it in your life time again is very close to zero, and if you truly realize that you have a blurred shot of a rare bird/animal that nobody else has photographed it before, I doubt you would delete it

[Roger Clark]

Thank for your great input John! This software is new to me and I would love to try it.
Will google it and give it a try.
Thanks!

Ofer,
Check out the sharpening thread:

Important Sharpening Information!

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/18534

Roger

[Daniel Cadieux]

I have be lurking in this interesting thread and will offer a couple of additional thoughts:

1. Images are rarely sharp across the entire field. This is due to DoF, spherical aberration etc. Even within the theoretical DoF, critical sharpness is only obtained at the focus point, so even those above who profess to have higher standards that others can only be truly happy at the focal point, unless they too "hold their noses" on sharpness a little bit! This issue though, suggests an addition to Ofer's original question: "What is sharp enough, and what proportion of the image needs to be sharp enough?" I'll answer the last part by saying the it could be a relatively small part of the image depending on what the photographer is trying to achieve.

2. Ofer mentions that "No digital tool can make a soft image sharp - sad but true.....". I would disagree with this. I am sure I could process two similar images, one a little soft, one sharp, using standard Photoshop techniques, either for web presentation say at BPN or for printing, and present them to you in a double blind experiment and you would not be able to reliably tell which one was the soft image. I'll call this the "Turing Test" for sharp images! And the Topaz Infocus tool which deblurs using Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution further extends your ability to make a sharp image out of a soft one.

Yes, good points. To answer:

1. For me, it's the eye and face...if those are perfectly sharp I am happy...and to a lesser but important degree for me also the chest and shoulder area, and maybe the feet (I guess that means the front half of the subject if it is angled towards the camera). Most of the time I don't really care where DOF falls after that. For example, I often see comments on images about wishing for more DOF to get the tail in focus. For some that is important (and that's OK) but for me I don't mind at all if the areas mentioned are sharp and in focus. In extreme cases I don't mind if only the face falls within DOF.

2. Although unsharp images can be made to look sharp, the personal satisfaction would be lacking for me. There are a couple of images where I've done just that, and every time I look at them I find myself thinking "yeah, but it is really not that sharp before post-processing"...it's just a personal negative mark on those images (fairly or not). I would hate to have a client order a 16 x 24 print of one such image, only for me to say "sorry, not available in that size" (due to softness issues) so I just don't publish them if not critically sharp to start with. Maybe I'm just too tough on myself, but I enjoy the self discipline...keeps me striving for better images every time I go out with my camera!!

P.S. I agree content is just as important as sharpness...a razor sharp image of an empty branch just doesn't make for exciting photography IMO (I get lots of those)!!

[Ofer Levy]

Ofer,
Check out the sharpening thread:

Important Sharpening Information!

http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...read.php/18534

Roger

Thanks for the excellent reference Roger!

[Ed Cordes]

Hey Ofer don't be so hard on youself I for one won't bin a shot that is slightly OOF, if I think it worth keeping. I do agree that the best images are the very sharp ones but sometimes one that slightly out can still look good with a bit of PS and most people that don't have a trained eye will not notice the difference. I also never delete in camera, as I have missed to many shots.

DITTO!! I do exactly the same thing.

[Paul Lagasi]

Ofer, interesting thread..

I don't ever delete anything until I get it home on my pc. For my quest, the rarer the bird the more liberal I can be with regards to quality.

Example: Recently I photographed a Colima Warbler in Texas, I may never get to that spot again or be able to make the 3.5 mile uphill climb but I did get 1 so-so image of the only Colima Warbler I saw..and I am keeping that no matter what the quality.

I don't sell or publish my images, for me its just a bucketlist thing...lololol..a very long bucketlist of birds.

My two cents, thanks