Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

What is wrong?

If your fantastic super duper digital camera and hyper sharp lenses are so awesome why does everyone need AI sharpening and all these other dozens of programs to fix the utter failures of their equipment performance?

SOOC should be just fine from your $6K cameras and $12,000K lenses.
But apparently they are hardly sharp at all and desperately need lots of help.
Or is it such poor technique with all this super equipment that the photos need salvaging?

A friend wants to know.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You've touched on a good subject. Additional to sharpening, how many rely on software instead of skill to accomplish a photograph? I realize processing is part of producing a photograph but to what extent does one rely on AI, etc.? Perhaps, even better yet, the approach that leads one to think the next camera I purchase will make me the photographer I aspire to be. Or rely on processing to "fix" whatever they photographed.
--Bob

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Thx, You got what I was trying to say.
.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Two things come to mind. First - our expectations. The fact that we do now have super-duper lenses and hi-res cameras means that we are more acutely aware of what the possibilities are, and we all have that nagging voice in the back of our minds wondering if what we have is as good as it could be.

Secondly, these days everything has to be hyper before it's seen as normal. That doesn't just apply to contrast, saturation, a lack of noise and the like, it also applies to sharpness. Once upon a time it would have been OK as long as a picture wasn't soft. Now it has to be not just sharp but ultra-sharp. I think I'll cling to my old-fashioned expectations and perceptions.

Stardust Loc: Central Illinois

Good point. I actually use software often for the opposite, to defocus / unsharpen / blur / soften, whatever we call it. In concentrating on sharp focus and adequate shutter speed on the subject I occasionally forget about the DOF, therefore wish to adjust the background.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

They're probably viewing on a 1280x800 Windows Millenium 12" laptop which was top of the line when they bought it and its still working good

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

I thought about the same thing but always put it off to the thought that a lot of members of this site are in their 80's and 90's and possibly suffer from tremors or other ailments that would cause them to not be as able as others to hold a camera steady, hold it the proper way or hold it for a long enough time to compose and capture.
Maybe Topaz has become a crutch for too many of us to not care if the shot is good when taken. When I PP I am the most critical judge of my work. A shot is either acceptable as is and moves on for further minor touch ups or artistic changes or gets culled. Imagine the poor fellows in the early 1900's who had to not only had to compose but remember to have enough black powder for the flash!

Ron

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I say if a photo is very good SOC it will still be better after processing no matter what camera one uses.

rcorne001 Loc: Cary, NC

If one restricts their photography to static subjects, I agree straight out of the camera should (and many times is) be good enough.

However, I do take exception to your over generalization. I shoot action shots in varying light. Most of my outdoor images are pretty good without sharpening. But when I shoot in old gymnasiums or even new ones in which the lighting is poor, it requires a little touch up. The $6K cameras and $12K lenses you so easily dismiss do allow getting shots that might otherwise be missed. My new $6K camera allowed me to shoot in a poorly lit rodeo arena last night. The skies were dark, the sun set and clouds were plentiful. The LCD display looked completely black. I was trying to shoot moving bulls and horses. Believe it or not they do NOT cooperate and stand still so I can drop the shutter speed, ISO and shoot wide open to the extent sharpening and or noise reduction is not needed. In order to freeze the movement, I shot at 1/800th, f2.8 and ISO 12,800. I will need to run the images through noise removal software.

If I were to assume what equipment you are using, what subjects under what conditions I would be just as guilty as you are in making an uninformed statement. More power to you if you are happy with what you get and what you use. But take a step back and don't disparage those who push the limits and readily use some post processing software to get the results closer to what they envisioned. I work darn hard in sometimes less than ideal conditions to get shots I consider acceptable. If it takes some post processing to help so be it.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Sharpness is the killer in wildlife/action picture taking and there are so many uncontrollable variables that effect the final result: The target takes a step as you trip the shutter; a gust of wind moves the flower the bug is on and suddenly the perfectly framed shot is slightly out of focus. In the old days that shot became a cull because it was slightly blurry or slightly out of focus and there was nothing you could do about it. You could fix a lot of things in the darkroom but focus was never one of them.

Now we have the means to fix some of those uncontrollable incidents and some people reject them because they are Artificial Intelligence? I can't find the logic in that. I just posted 3 shots of a bee, without looking at the metadata can anyone tell me which, if any, I used AI on? Results are what's important. If you are satisfied with the picture that's what is most important. If other people like it too so much the better.

gasstro Loc: Indiana

Just Shoot Me Loc: Ithaca, NY

Good point, I agree totally. But with wildlife, when the subject moves a leg or a flower blows in the wind...wouldn't you have been better off with manual focus directly on your subject instead of AF? Here we are again depending upon our equipment/software rather than our inherent skills to capture the moment.

Ron

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

My short answer is no. First, I am not physically what I was 50 years ago, come to think about it not even 5 years ago. My eyesight is going my reflexes are gone. Manual focus is a dream when you are 79. Second, I didn't spend all that money for a camera and lenses, with all those bells and whistles, to shoot in manual. As I age VR becomes more and more important too.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

Still subjects are one thing, but where I shoot, the birds and critters do not wait for me. A snap shot of a bird in flight can be saved by post-processing tools. No one has to buy them or use them. Wonderful experts do not need help, poor mortals do.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Well said Mike