What is the sharpness triangle? Do not be confused if you never heard of it because I just made it up. I had never heard of it but in answering another post...

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Do not be confused if you never heard of it because I just made it up. I had never heard of it but in answering another post, http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-265061-1.html#4466974, this immutable law of photography dawned upon me.

Do you know about the exposure triangle? Shutter speed, aperture, ISO. Pick any two and the third comes automatically. Here is a new concept. Let me call it the sharpness triangle: motion blur, depth-of-field, noise. Pick any two and get stuck with the third. Keep that in mind when setting your exposure. Motion blur can be due to the photographer, camera or subject. In both cases, the exposure and sharpness triangles, having enough light for a proper exposure lurks in the shadows. The triangle assures getting enough light to the light collector be it film or a electronic sensor.

Happy shooting.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Oh boy. More triangles. I love geometry! Well thought out, it makes sense.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Interesting approach, though it really would only apply in low light situations insofar as enough light on the subject will afford you the ability to use a high shutter speed and a small aperture (if that's what you're angling for) without having to raise the ISO. So it's not immutable as the exposure triangle, from which one cannot escape (without adding light, anyway)

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

f8lee wrote:

Interesting approach, though it really would only apply in low light situations insofar as enough light on the subject will afford you the ability to use a high shutter speed and a small aperture (if that's what you're angling for) without having to raise the ISO. So it's not immutable as the exposure triangle, from which one cannot escape (without adding light, anyway)

Both triangles are absolutely immutable. However, with enough light, the trade-offs become vanishingly small.

Mr. PC, thanks for the complement.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

abc1234 wrote:

Both triangles are absolutely immutable. However, with enough light, the trade-offs become vanishingly small.

Mr. PC, thanks for the complement.

Well, if immutable is defined as "unchanging over time or unable to be changed" then the sharpness triangle ain't that - "with enough light", as you point out, either the blur factor or the DOF factor (or both) become nil - you will get no blur due to either if it's bright enough and so the triangle's value becomes nothing. So, as I said, it's good for low light situations.

Contrast that to the exposure triangle, which is indeed immutable, in that adding light doesn't alter the basic issue of achieving a properly exposed shot.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Mogul wrote:

Very good reference from the standpoint of the light capturing medium. That could be film or an electronic sensor. The difference is that I am talking about the trade-offs required when taking the picture regardless of whether the camera has film or an electronic sensor. As with the exposure triangle, the sharpness triangle gets the photographer to think about what he or she gets or gives when setting the camera's controls.

Thank you for finding this.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

abc1234 wrote:

Very good reference from the standpoint of the light capturing medium. That could be film or an electronic sensor. The difference is that I am talking about the trade-offs required when taking the picture regardless of whether the camera has film or an electronic sensor. As with the exposure triangle, the sharpness triangle gets the photographer to think about what he or she gets or gives when setting the camera's controls.

Thank you for finding this.

Inasmuch as you can control speed and grain with both, the trade-off is color saturation and sharpness, difficult to control with the warmer colors. So, maybe you ought to throw in another variable, color temperature range.

abc1234 Loc: Elk Grove Village, Illinois

Mogul, we are looking at two different things. I am concerned about optical sharpness while you are considering the sharpness of the light capturing device. The photographer can control motion, depth-of-field and ISO while the manufacturer more than the photographer controls the color properties of the film or sensor. I agree with your point but as a practical matter, the photographer accepts that as a given and worries about shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

abc1234 wrote:

Mogul, we are looking at two different things. I am concerned about optical sharpness while you are considering the sharpness of the light capturing device. The photographer can control motion, depth-of-field and ISO while the manufacturer more than the photographer controls the color properties of the film or sensor. I agree with your point but as a practical matter, the photographer accepts that as a given and worries about shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the sharpness of the resultant image, the culmination of all factors, AND of the manner in which it is viewed.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Why are you triangling to make photography sound difficult?? These days, small children can cope with their ipad phone cameras.............Simpuls!!!

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

abc1234 wrote:

Do not be confused if you never heard of it becaus... (show quote)

I call it the "sharpness trade-off"

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

abc1234 wrote:

Mogul, we are looking at two different things. I am concerned about optical sharpness while you are considering the sharpness of the light capturing device. The photographer can control motion, depth-of-field and ISO while the manufacturer more than the photographer controls the color properties of the film or sensor. I agree with your point but as a practical matter, the photographer accepts that as a given and worries about shutter speed, aperture and ISO.

No I don't think that these are two different things. Shutter speed will control camera shake and subject motion blur, aperture will control depth of focus and ISO will determine noise. A change to control two will automatically degrade the other. (unless of course you have an infinite supply of light to play with)

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Pablo8 wrote:

Why are you triangling to make photography sound difficult?? These days, small children can cope with their ipad phone cameras.............Simpuls!!!

I am glad someone said this before me so I don't have to be the only grouch.
I agree.
Adding an unnecessary complication that will only cloud your thinking.

There is no sharpness triangle.
There is an exposure triangle and that already directs these things.
ISO, aperture, shutter speed.
Aperture controls DOF.
Shutter speed controls movement blur.
ISO & shutter speed control noise.

Your sharpness triangle is just a complicated interpretation of the exposure triangle.

zigipha Loc: north nj

lighthouse wrote:

I am glad someone said this before me so I don't h... (show quote)

1. Life is a trade off - why should photography be any different?
2. If the concept is too difficult to comprehend, then gloss over it
3. It may offer some insight in to a few

Conceptually, it shows the tradeoffs of shutter, aperture and iso wrt to sharpness. These are the same points in the exposure triangle. But while the exposure triangle shows the tradeoffs on how to get the right amount of light, I see this as an overlay saying "while you are trading off to get the right amount of light, these are the side effects you can expect wrt sharpness"