Sharpness Over Emphasized? (Page 7): ^^^EXACTLY... but Jim ASSUMES the photographer intended that image to be "sharp", when in fact, I believe it wound up being EXACTLY as he imagined...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

busmaster2 wrote:

Nonetheless while not sharp it does convey emotion, I don't think it being sharper would make it better, and while not sharp it's not blurry either,,,the point of the picture is still conveyed,

^^^EXACTLY... but Jim ASSUMES the photographer intended that image to be "sharp", when in fact, I believe it wound up being EXACTLY as he imagined it.

Jim somehow glossed/skipped over or just plain MISSED the point I was trying to make... that an image INTENDED to be sharp that winds up NOT being sharp... is a failure.

You know; like the home plate view of a 95 mile per hour fastball just barely brushing the outside corner of the plate frozen by a high enough shutter speed to stop the rotation? IF you can count the stitches success. If on the other hand you can't because of focus blur, FAILURE.

AGAIN, you can't post process information that isn't there. It is better to have it and not need it, than to need it and... well; you get the picture. ;)

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Thanks for the references, SwedeUSA2.

.

Apaflo wrote:

Do a web search on "gestalt theory photograph... (show quote)

Rufus Loc: Puget Sound area, WA

When I shoot portraits, I want the eyes to be needle sharp, The catch light and the details of the iris make the photo for me. If these are not sharp, the photo may be pleasing but not compete as a portrait.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Apaflo wrote:

That should not be assumed. I understood what it was, and did not recite the history for your benefit but rather for all of those who are not familiar with it.

Several weeks back an image was posted that had, in a much reduced way, somewhat the same visual effect. I posted a critique of that image, comparing it to Smith's image and provided a URL. The OP of course was unaware...

OK, I got the TiC part from the OP, and have read all 7 pages on this topic, but as a newcomer to photography don't know enough yet to get why "Paradise" is not sharp.

It seems at least the foreground is sharp and the leaves making the internal frame at the top are sharp but the Paradise part is suitably not sharp. If I have that wrong, maybe someone can explain. I'm leaving aside the role of +/- sharp in building the image's artful story.

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

Facts, you don't want a sharp lens for most portraits, few people have clear skin and no wrinkles. An old school technique for portrait photographers was to smear vaseline on the lens to soften, and take out physical imperfections. Were as wildlife photographers wants the sharpest photo you can get, they want to see the individual feathers etc.

Kuzano

John_F wrote:

Is there some kind of easy test one can use to apply to one's lenses to evaluate their 'degree' of sharpness. Graph paper.

I remember buying the USAF 1951 Sharpness Charts. Still available, but the USAF has embellished the sharpness and resolution charts and they are downloadable.

http://store.prepressexpress.com/en/scanner-targets/873-silverfast-usaf-1951-resolution-target.html

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

CaptainC wrote:

I quite agree and nothing I posted should be taken otherwise. PP has its place, but not as professional retouching. For quick work almost all use Portraiture by Imagenomic.

I was very curious about Imagenomic Portraiture so, I did a search and any links to Imagenomic Portraiture gave me security warnings all over the place. The reviews that I did find were less than stellar. I feel I must be missing something somewhere.

Do you have a link to the site?

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Flyextreme wrote:

I was very curious about Imagenomic Portraiture so, I did a search and any links to Imagenomic Portraiture gave me security warnings all over the place. The reviews that I did find were less than stellar. I feel I must be missing something somewhere.

Do you have a link to the site?

I went right to the site with no problem. Here:
http://www.imagenomic.com

Like anything, it needs to be sued properly and it is easy to overdo it. Not as easy as Portrait Pro, but one does need to be careful not to destroy all skin texture.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

CaptainC wrote:

I went right to the site with no problem. Here:
http://www.imagenomic.com

Like anything, it needs to be sued properly and it is easy to overdo it. Not as easy as Portrait Pro, but one does need to be careful not to destroy all skin texture.

That's strange. My search engine must have been on the frits last night :|

Thanks :-)

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Apaflo wrote:

A photograph is like a Thanksgiving dinner. It h... (show quote)

Exceptionally well said, Apaflo!
Wish I had said it!

Dave

BushDog Loc: San Antonio, TX

gemlenz wrote:

Just move the clarity dial to the left and you'll see imperfections disappear.

:thumbup: That (Lightroom) clarity adjustment can do wonders for portraits. I don't soften the eyes though. For the face and hair, though, it can be magic.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

Apaflo wrote:

Really? Granted that Edward Weston, Ansel Adams, ... (show quote)

I did my own B&W work (processing film to enlarging) long before I went digital (and I love digital). I had a good camera with good lenses; my enlarger was a good enlarger, but I was not happy with the results of the photos. Yes, they were too "soft." As I did some more studying, I learned about a little microscope-type device that you put on the base that held the paper and you could actually fine tune the grains in the film (making the photo "sharper" actually, more in focus). Even in film days the "bourgeois" were interested in sharp, in focus, images.

jim hill Loc: Springfield, IL

photoman022 wrote:

I did my own B&W work (processing film to enla... (show quote)

Ah yes. I remember it well. Used it until I had to give up darkroom work and gave it all away along with all my equipment and a D2 Omega. These little devices were called enlarger grain magnifiers. Worth their weight in gold. And you can't get much sharper than the grain. The problem was do you focus on the front, the middle, or the back of the grain. Middle would seem like the correct answer but it wasn't. Do you remember?

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

BobHartung wrote:

Re: skingfong

And your addition to the discussion was?

Not much as I'm more interested in what everyone else has to say on the topic. I'm more of a listener and observer.

My original thoughts before I started this thread was sharpness through great glass. Great glass or gear doesn't make great images. It's the person who uses it. Great gear helps. Even more important is having great skills. Knowing and understanding strengths and limitations of your gear and how to use it is something I'd rather emphasize over sharpness. Having a trained or a good eye definitely helps too. Having technical and PP skills also counts in this digital age.

If someone asked me to choose between great skills, knowledge, and eye vs. great equipment, I'd take great skills, knowledge and a good eye any day. To me, that's more important than any piece of equipment.

Great glass, great gear can't take the pictures alone, the person behind the camera takes the picture. There should be more emphasis on our skills so we can get the sharp pictures we all want. That's pretty much my bottom line.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

photoman022 wrote:

I did my own B&W work (processing film to enla... (show quote)

A grain focuser does not make an image "more in focus" than it already was.

Maybe you don't know who Henri Cartier-Bresson was?