Posted by Barbara Graham on September 16, 2011 at 9:43 PM
Months ago I posted asking about sharpness of images, as in don't they need to be sharp to some degree anyway, if not tack sharp, at actual original pixel size. Some people said it depends on what you want to do with them. Now, after more time, I still think they do. It seems to me that to settle for less is settling for less. I know someone who prints out images at 4x6 or something like that, and they all look great at that size, but larger they are not at all great. To me that's stopping short of being really good at it. It seems to me that lots of people can take pictures that are blurry any larger than small sizes. Does anyone agree with that, or am I just still not seeing it correctly?
Generally true, but it does depend on what you want to do with the image. You want the highest degree of sharpness you can get, then you have many more options of enlarging. But a smaller image and less-sharp image may be perfect for greeting cards, calendars, posters, or small framed presents for people.
Never get rid of an interesting, unique, or "just something you LIKE" image if it is not tack-sharp at a large size. Also, as we progress in PS skills and new software is released, who KNOWS what may become "salvageable" in the future.
That's MY 2 cents!
Sandy
Sandy
Posted by Michael Elenko on September 17, 2011 at 4:05 AM
Barbara,
I would both agree and disagree with your premise. Sharpness can be an important attribute, but it’s not necessarily the key one. It depends on the image and, of course, what the requirements around its usage are.
Certain images, such as macro shots, call attention to minute detail, so sharpness is an implied value of the photograph. For many other types of work, the content of the image tends to be more important than the technical attributes, including sharpness. Many great historic photographs would be criticized today as being too soft. I’ve seen plenty of excellent contemporary street shots that may lack sharpness to draw blood—but they have heart!
On a few occasions I’ve sat in a room with art show jurors (non-photographic and photographic fine artists). One consistent finding I leave with is that the feel of a picture makes a deeper impression over sharpness, DOF, perfect exposure, and the other dozen things we tend to pay heed to.
Some images look right at 4x6 regardless of their technical excellence. Others need to be billboard size. And sharpness is just one component of the whole gestalt we evaluate.
ME
Posted by John Tobias on September 17, 2011 at 10:19 AM
Barbara, if only tack sharp photos were posted we would miss seeing alot of nature photos. For example the photo of 2 hummingbirds interacting I posted in Avian is not tack sharp, but I felt the action I captured was interesting enough to post the photo. To me one of the aspects of NPN is the opportunity to share nature experiences with other photographers, trying to get the best technical image is fine, but should not be the primary factor in sharing a photo and the experience IMHO. Selling photos is another matter, but I have seem many published photos that lacked tack sharpness,
Posted by RL Potts on September 17, 2011 at 11:03 AM
The first response by Sandy is perfect in every way. I would like to remind you that there are excellent and time-honored blurring techniques as well. And then there is the middle-ground where lens babies or very shallow depth of field is used. In addition, with the photography gallery here in town which always has a show of some kind going on, sharpness in large prints actually seems to be frowned upon!
Posted by Barbara Graham on September 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Typing on phone, hence omitted words. Not clear in my post - meant looks okay small but is blurry, oof if you see it a bit larger, not intentional blurring or lens effects.
Posted by Richard Ditch on September 17, 2011 at 12:30 PM
It seems to me that to settle for less is settling for less.
I agree with your basic premise, Barbara. For me sharpness is of critical importance, and accepting less because it isn't as obvious at small sizes diminishes anyone's work.
Yes, there are times when rarity of subject matter trumps the technical perfection of the image: any photo of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker would be a keeper! And there have been a number photographers who have been commercially successful by adopting a soft "romantic" look based on soft light, grain, and diffusers.
IMO you will never regret setting the highest standards for your own work and doing your best to meet them.
Posted by Jim DeWitt on September 17, 2011 at 2:30 PM
Former Avian Moderstor Bob Steele helped me develop sharpening techniques. Has he pointed out, it's simply indispensable to get the sharpest photo possible the field, but you can't do that until you know exactly what your camera can and cannot do. Spend time with your camera, practicing making photographs of very high detail images. I photographed graph paper and eye charts under different lighting conditions, at varying f-stops and shutter speeds, hand held and tripod based, with and without image stabilization. With every lens you want to use in the field. That's the only way of knowing what your camera and lenses can do.
Posted by Barbara Graham on September 18, 2011 at 9:53 AM
Thank you for the responses, everyone.
IMO you will never regret setting the highest standards for your own work and doing your best to meet them.
I think this is the key for me. For me it makes this more of a struggle than it would be if I were happy with all the images that look fine at small sizes but not at larger sizes, and I'd have a much larger portfolio of work if I kept all those images, but I'd rather be able to think about the work I do keep and smile. As it is I am happy with some so far, like the ones of deer, that I haven't gotten sharp yet, but I fully intend to keep working hard until I get some sharp images of deer and everything else that I can.
Just FYI to everyone who mentioned it, I completely understand the various types of intentionally soft images. That's not what I'm talking about here.
Posted by RL Potts on September 18, 2011 at 1:41 PM
I am old and unsteady. But I have pretty much given up tripods except for use with super teles. With modern APS-C cameras, it is difficult to get images that are not tack at 13x19" even when shooting casually. Relying on technology has some pitfalls. Not all camera bodies can calibrate for lens focus issues. If your lens is spot on, you should be good to go. Let the ISO of 200 or more, the wider apertures needed for the smaller sensor, and the IS or stabilization keep you out of trouble.
Posted by Basil Greber on September 18, 2011 at 2:51 PM
I agree and disagree. Yes, I also try to get the sharpest possible capture in the field. Of course. But then, there are those shots that, while sharp up to, say A4 (approx. 8 x 10 inches) prints, are not sharp at 100 %. Yes, it would be better if they were sharp all the way. But honestly, I very rarely print above that size, and if the subject matter is worth it, I'll keep those. Yes, it is settling for less. But that's o.k., I think. And I'll try to do better next time... and anyways, to me, having a photo with interesting subject matter that prints well to 8x10 is worth more than having a tack sharp but boring one.
Discussion
10 repliesNever get rid of an interesting, unique, or "just something you LIKE" image if it is not tack-sharp at a large size. Also, as we progress in PS skills and new software is released, who KNOWS what may become "salvageable" in the future.
That's MY 2 cents!
Sandy
Sandy
I would both agree and disagree with your premise. Sharpness can be an important attribute, but it’s not necessarily the key one. It depends on the image and, of course, what the requirements around its usage are.
Certain images, such as macro shots, call attention to minute detail, so sharpness is an implied value of the photograph. For many other types of work, the content of the image tends to be more important than the technical attributes, including sharpness. Many great historic photographs would be criticized today as being too soft. I’ve seen plenty of excellent contemporary street shots that may lack sharpness to draw blood—but they have heart!
On a few occasions I’ve sat in a room with art show jurors (non-photographic and photographic fine artists). One consistent finding I leave with is that the feel of a picture makes a deeper impression over sharpness, DOF, perfect exposure, and the other dozen things we tend to pay heed to.
Some images look right at 4x6 regardless of their technical excellence. Others need to be billboard size. And sharpness is just one component of the whole gestalt we evaluate.
ME
I agree with your basic premise, Barbara. For me sharpness is of critical importance, and accepting less because it isn't as obvious at small sizes diminishes anyone's work.
Yes, there are times when rarity of subject matter trumps the technical perfection of the image: any photo of a living Ivory-billed Woodpecker would be a keeper! And there have been a number photographers who have been commercially successful by adopting a soft "romantic" look based on soft light, grain, and diffusers.
IMO you will never regret setting the highest standards for your own work and doing your best to meet them.
I think this is the key for me. For me it makes this more of a struggle than it would be if I were happy with all the images that look fine at small sizes but not at larger sizes, and I'd have a much larger portfolio of work if I kept all those images, but I'd rather be able to think about the work I do keep and smile. As it is I am happy with some so far, like the ones of deer, that I haven't gotten sharp yet, but I fully intend to keep working hard until I get some sharp images of deer and everything else that I can.
Just FYI to everyone who mentioned it, I completely understand the various types of intentionally soft images. That's not what I'm talking about here.