'Sharpness'

[Andy M]

Not the best I've ever read on the subject, but interesting all the same:

http://thedigitaltrekker.com/2008/10/steve-mccurry...

[Altrezia]

You mean I'm not st at this stuff, after all?

[urban_alchemist]

I use a fully manual rangefinder.

Sharpness is bullst.

[GetCarter]

urban_alchemist said:

Sharpness is bullst.

Do please elucidate

[Simpo Two]

I think the examples shown are more about expression than sharpness.

We also need to differentiate bewteen in/out of focus (controlled at time of taking) and sharpening applied in processing.

Ideally the photo will be in focus AND have a great expression, but an image that excels in one parameter can get away with being short in another I feel.

Edited by Simpo Two on Monday 13th October 19:14

[urban_alchemist]

GetCarter said:

urban_alchemist said:

Sharpness is bullst.

Do please elucidate

A soft image can often be far more appealing than something tack-sharp. My favourite lense vignettes like crazy, and has a weird ripple signature where it is sharp at the centre and at two other points mid-way through the frame.

The results are the opposite of sharp, but magical:

[Simpo Two]

urban_alchemist said:

A soft image can often be far more appealing than something tack-sharp. My favourite lense vignettes like crazy, and has a weird ripple signature where it is sharp at the centre and at two other points mid-way through the frame.

The results are the opposite of sharp, but magical

Mmm but the window shutters and aerial are sharp, so the eye has something to lock onto and gives depth. If the whole thing was out of focus it wouldn't look so good I think. So your photo IS sharp, it's just that it's not sharp on the subject you'd expect.

[sa_20v]

Slightly OT, but below is a good link to sharpening PP in PS.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php...