wapiti Loc: round rock, texas

Dead solid perfect!

ebbote Loc: Hockley, Texas

Sharp, great shot Joe.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Hi, joer
What’s to be said other than the download is testimony to the exquisitely sharp, finely detailed image that you accomplished!
Absolutely and beautifully well done.
Even the individual subunits of the bee’s compound eye are seen in the catchlight!
Be really proud of this.

With admiration,

Dave

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Looks sharp to me (the bee) on selective focus.

Gampa

To my eye, the sharpness is just fine

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The posted resolution is 2190x1692, 3.7 MP cropped from the original 5568x3712 or 20.6 MP.

On a 4k monitor it does not come close to filling the screen so it does not seem that processing sharpness or monitor resolution is an issue.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Too kind but I appreciate it very much.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Thank you so much Earnest.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Thank you kindly Dave.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Thanks Gampa.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Thanks for the details Scotty.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Thank you William.

ken glanzer

I zoomed the size of the image on my monitor to examine the picture sharpness better. The white hairs were fair. There seems to be limited depth of field & too slow a shutter speed. For some reason this picture didn't tickle my sharpness pixels in my eye where really sharp pictures have I've seen really did. Why didn't you use the 4K for viewing? To evaluate any picture the best monitor resolution is always needed. Every step of a picture making process has to be at maximum with film in particular. One step that is not maximized reducing resolution will not be corrected by the following steps no matter how good they are. They just reproduce to the best of their ability what they are fed & never improve it.
Fortunately Digital Photography has fewer steps than film pictures & is much quicker to see the results & correct the exposure if necessary. Maximum sharpness can be easily evaluated in the computer later but always make sure the proper exposure was used. On overcast days I use a flash to improve the contrast & sharpness of objects within its range (shutter speed automatically sets at 1/250). Always shoot at 1/500 with normal lenses (unless a mono or tripod is used) when hand held & "Squeeze the Trigger'' slowly as they say in guns. Always maximize the precision of every step. There are no effective compromises ever in photography--it is not forgiving.
35mm photography was always a Resolution Disaster starting off with small negs, often fast film like salt & pepper grain Tri-X for faster film speed often using an F stop on the camera that wasn't optimum like F16, improper development affecting contrast, enlarger lens not at maximum precise focus & at its best F-Stop, wiggly enlarger table & support post on & on (I beefed everything up mechanically). In my Leica Focal Mat Enlarger I also used my Leica camera 50mm Collapsible Summacron lens (designed with a slide rule many year ago & lots of Lens Insight) as it had the highest resolution of all 35mm camera lenses I tested at F4 (on much finer grain film that Pan-X in order to see it--Kodak Hi-Contrast Copy film--also used Spectro-Graphic 649 that resolved 1000 lines/mm). Enlarger exposures where quicker at F4 also reducing negative heating & defocusing, enlarger wiggle (it was a F2 lens)(the Non Colapsible 50mm Summacron was not quite as sharp for some reason). The Leica Enlarger had a Constant Focus set up for different enlargements but I never used it. Enlarger lenses need to be flatter in focus (the enlargement is flat 2D--not 3D) where camera lens weren't as flat not ideal for enlarging. It wasn't as sharp on the edges of the enlargement at F4 as in the center at but that was often the area of most importance & the negative was often cropped. If I used F8 the edges were sharper than at F4 but the center wasn't as sharp I could actually see with small print. Note! The Nikon 50mm Macro was close in resolution but designed with a computer many years later.
Ha$$elblad negs were always an improvement over 35mm for starters & easier to clean & handle. I started with 4x5, 8x10 negs & CONTACT PRINTS (perfect contact & no wiggle reproduction). Contact paper had a better contrast range one could see as it had more silver in it. You could see some detail in the darker areas. I can spot a Contact Print every time. Poly Contrast Enlarging Paper had to be faster due to weaker enlarger images & never ever equaled the over all quality of Contact Paper.
I have maximized many 35mm shots making it just barely worth the effort, it was a Precision Hassle start to finish just for the convenience of a smaller camera initially but bigger Ha$$elblad negs were always better. I had 6 removable film backs to separate sun light & over cast B&W pictures to use the proper developing times for each. Lugging a 4x5 around in the early days was a hassle but we didn't know any better way to go. The negs were a joy to easily use & evaluate. I still have 3 great 4x5's & a Linhoff 8x10 & use them occasionally just for old times sake. You need to experience the feeling to appreciate it.
For a better picture taking height (often too close to the ground) I made a Roof Platform on top of my car like A.Adams had that improved many pictures. I could use it very quickly using a small ladder to get on top of it. Of course to get the proper contrast ratio & proper detail in the Hi's & Lo's on every shot even if properly exposed, the negs had to be separated into sun light or overcast developing times batches per A.Adams very effective Zone System of Development. The Contrast Goal Kodak always recommended was the neg printed best on F2 Paper which it often did using the Zone System & proper development. Kodak didn't tell you how to get the perfect neg virtually every time as Adams did. They never could explain how to do it. I seldom needed to use F3 or F1 paper thanks to Adams. As effective as it was & precise as light meter measurements could be made, it was a average of all contrasts it sees based on the Gray scale for balance unless a spot meter was used. He even bracketed his shots I saw in Ha$$elblad negatives hanging up in his dark room. I almost asked him why he bracketed. I often did also (never got a bad neg that way & never had to retake another shot which was often not possible & it saved a lot of time & $$$). Regardless how advanced the camera is like the N850 there are still guide lines that have to be rigidly followed to assure you get everything the new camera recorded after the shot was made.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Much too long to read but thanks for looking.

richfred

I love the image. The COI (the bee) is razor sharp. I can count the fuzzy hairs on its head.