What constitutes sharpness?
Dec 17, 2014 14:52:51 #
Can anyone see the difference between these two photos? How sharp does an image have to be for it to be determined as technically sharp?
Here are two images Art Wolfe puts up in his creative live class. It is the ten deadly sins of composition section. It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa.
I am curious about how many people think that the first image is acceptable.
Here are two images Art Wolfe puts up in his creative live class. It is the ten deadly sins of composition section. It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa.
I am curious about how many people think that the first image is acceptable.
Not Sharp - Camera Movement
Sharp Image
Dec 17, 2014 15:11:00 #
Agree with Art Wolfe.
I wasn't there when I just started out (probably not critical enough about my own work, and I just didn't yet have a critical eye, either).
But increasingly, even if it's a subject I desperately want to show, if the image is blurred (especially the eye with all wildlife subjects), then it gets deleted now.
I wasn't there when I just started out (probably not critical enough about my own work, and I just didn't yet have a critical eye, either).
But increasingly, even if it's a subject I desperately want to show, if the image is blurred (especially the eye with all wildlife subjects), then it gets deleted now.
Dec 17, 2014 15:13:46 #
Hi there, I guess it would depend on what you want to do with the photo. Sharpness means clarity or how in focus the shot is. The second one appears much sharper to me. Maybe it's different on the download?
I would keep for personal viewing though if it was something special and that was your only shot. For something that I would put out with my name on it, it would have to be as close to perfect as I could present it. Just my thoughts.
Chris
I would keep for personal viewing though if it was something special and that was your only shot. For something that I would put out with my name on it, it would have to be as close to perfect as I could present it. Just my thoughts.
Chris
Nightski wrote:
Can anyone see the difference between these two photos? How sharp does an image have to be for it to be determined as technically sharp?
Here are two images Art Wolfe puts up in his creative live class. It is the ten deadly sins of composition section. It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa.
I am curious about how many people think that the first image is acceptable.
Here are two images Art Wolfe puts up in his creative live class. It is the ten deadly sins of composition section. It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa.
I am curious about how many people think that the first image is acceptable.
Dec 17, 2014 15:32:43 #
Nightski wrote:
Can anyone see the difference between these two photos? How sharp does an image have to be for it to be determined as technically sharp?
Here are two images Art Wolfe puts up in his creative live class. It is the ten deadly sins of composition section. It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa.
I am curious about how many people think that the first image is acceptable.
Here are two images Art Wolfe puts up in his creative live class. It is the ten deadly sins of composition section. It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa.
I am curious about how many people think that the first image is acceptable.
IMO neither is sharp, and I doubt having a higher quality download would prove otherwise. The one called "Sharp" is noticeably soft in the faces/eyes.
If it were made as a possible reference image for a painter, it would likely serve. But as a framed piece? Absolutely not.
In fact, reading through the softness of the "Sharp Image", I think there is arguable evidence of movement blur as well.
Indeed, I am more than a little surprised that Art Wolfe would deem either image immune from the delete button.
Dave in SD
Dec 17, 2014 15:42:59 #
The second one is less unsharp than the first. However it is not what I would call sharp, as presented here. Perhaps the uploading has degraded what you intended to show us, but this is not "sharp". If it was the only trip to Africa I would probably keep it as a souvenir, but I wouldn't brag about it.
Dec 17, 2014 16:31:48 #
Nightski wrote:
Can anyone see the difference between these two photos? How sharp does an image have to be for it to be determined as technically sharp?
...It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa. ...
...It's his opinion that the first one needs to meet the delete button even if it was the only trip you'll ever take to Africa. ...
Of course the first should be deleated.
I would retain the second one only if they had just eaten my ex and it was the only shot i had of the little darlings.
Dec 17, 2014 16:36:24 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
The first image is obviously soft and I totally agree with Art that it should be binned, deleted, consigned to the scrap pile. It is junk.
Maybe if it was Nessie or Sasquatch I would keep it, but its not, its a lion.
The second one I would keep. It is acceptable so far.
But it is absolutely impossible to judge just how sharp it is, or how soft it is from what we see here.
We appear to be looking at a screen capture from a movie, so its maximum pixel size is going to be the size of the image presented on the monitor after it has gone through a number of conversions.
And we are not looking at a download.
We are looking at an image on our screens that might be 480 x 200 pixels?
And yet, apparently Dave deems this to be a soft image with movement blur only fit to be used as a reference for a painter???!???
I think that says more about Dave than it says about the image.
I am going to throw my hat in Arts corner here and say that yes, I believe this image is sharp and is a good image to place in comparison to the first piece of soft junk of those lions.
Maybe if it was Nessie or Sasquatch I would keep it, but its not, its a lion.
The second one I would keep. It is acceptable so far.
But it is absolutely impossible to judge just how sharp it is, or how soft it is from what we see here.
We appear to be looking at a screen capture from a movie, so its maximum pixel size is going to be the size of the image presented on the monitor after it has gone through a number of conversions.
And we are not looking at a download.
We are looking at an image on our screens that might be 480 x 200 pixels?
And yet, apparently Dave deems this to be a soft image with movement blur only fit to be used as a reference for a painter???!???
I think that says more about Dave than it says about the image.
I am going to throw my hat in Arts corner here and say that yes, I believe this image is sharp and is a good image to place in comparison to the first piece of soft junk of those lions.
Dec 17, 2014 16:45:00 #
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Nightski posted this to ask about discerning differences in sharpness and what we do with unsharp images (which the first image clearly is) - not to critique how sharp the 2nd image is or isn't.
As lighthouse has noted, there's no way to say whether the 2nd image is sharp enough to print or ideally sharp, since it's a screen capture of a video!
As lighthouse has noted, there's no way to say whether the 2nd image is sharp enough to print or ideally sharp, since it's a screen capture of a video!
Dec 17, 2014 19:40:59 #
The images are a print screen from the Creative Live Class called The Art of Nature Photography by Art Wolfe. I assure you that the second image is tack sharp. It may have suffered in the process with which I used to upload it. However, I personally think the difference in these two shots is blaringly obvious. These images are what I have in mind when I review an image in the critque section. To me, a wildlife portrait needs to be tack sharp at the eyes. I think the focus on the eyes in an animal is what gives it life in a photograph. If you don't have that, then you don't have a shot. You may have a nice memory of a vacation or an adventure, but you do not have a shot worth printing and hanging on the wall.
Does every shot have to be a "Wall Hanger"? No. But, when someone posts an image in the Photo Critque Section, I take that image very seriously. I take it as though it is something the author would like to print and hang on a wall or show off in a gallery. Maybe they are not quite there yet with the image, and it that case I think it is very important to give the author the feedback he or she needs to go out and get that "Wall Hanger". If the person does not want that kind of feedback, then the photo gallery is the place to share the fun photos you've taken. You will get all kinds of "nice shot" comments, thumbsup, and pleasant conversations.
The one thing I always wish to see in the Photo Critique Section is correct technical feedback. Mistakes will be made, but I think every effort should be made to be as accurate as possible.
Does every shot have to be a "Wall Hanger"? No. But, when someone posts an image in the Photo Critque Section, I take that image very seriously. I take it as though it is something the author would like to print and hang on a wall or show off in a gallery. Maybe they are not quite there yet with the image, and it that case I think it is very important to give the author the feedback he or she needs to go out and get that "Wall Hanger". If the person does not want that kind of feedback, then the photo gallery is the place to share the fun photos you've taken. You will get all kinds of "nice shot" comments, thumbsup, and pleasant conversations.
The one thing I always wish to see in the Photo Critique Section is correct technical feedback. Mistakes will be made, but I think every effort should be made to be as accurate as possible.
Dec 17, 2014 20:18:28 #
Acceptable? If it's intended for a wallet-size print, I suppose it will do just fine. I have a cheap camera with a plastic lens (instead of glass) that produces images with this level of sharpness all the time. That doesn't mean that the camera has no use at all, or that it cannot be used to create a stunning, expressive image. In photography, sharpness isn't everything.
Dec 17, 2014 20:22:20 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Acceptable? If it's intended for a wallet-size print, I suppose it will do just fine. I have a cheap camera with a plastic lens (instead of glass) that produces images with this level of sharpness all the time. That doesn't mean that the camera has no use at all, or that it cannot be used to create a stunning, expressive image. In photography, sharpness isn't everything.
Sometimes not, Rook. But sometimes, especially with human and wildlife portraits it is so critical. The portrait takes on a life of it's own when the eyes are sharp and when they have a catchlight. Of course that is but one aspect, but it is a very important aspect.
Dec 17, 2014 21:00:26 #
Nightski wrote:
Sometimes not, Rook. But sometimes, especially with human and wildlife portraits it is so critical. The portrait takes on a life of it's own when the eyes are sharp and when they have a catchlight. Of course that is but one aspect, but it is a very important aspect.
Perhaps there should be a recommended file size to post when asking for a critique..
Dec 17, 2014 21:04:50 #
oldtigger wrote:
Perhaps there should be a recommended file size to post when asking for a critique..
We do encourage posters to allow download. The downloadable images are much better quality than the thumbnails.
Dec 17, 2014 21:15:13 #
Nightski wrote:
We do encourage posters to allow download. The downloadable images are much better quality than the thumbnails.
since we aren't doing any technical judgement i read that as meaning 2000 x 3000 ( 6.5 mpx ) and download should suffice?
Dec 17, 2014 23:57:15 #
Nightski wrote:
Sometimes not, Rook. But sometimes, especially with human and wildlife portraits it is so critical. The portrait takes on a life of it's own when the eyes are sharp and when they have a catchlight. Of course that is but one aspect, but it is a very important aspect.
I agree.
But developing an impulsive obsession with sharpness can lead to a path of never-ending sharpness test images, usually lacking in creativity, ideas and sometimes even good composition.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.