[Reactor]

Photo monkeys, how sharp is sharp enough?

If your photo looks good at 1:1 on a computer monitor do you call it good? If not what is your most objective criteria for knowing if a photo is sharp enough?

I'm seeing photo's that look pretty good in photography forums and seeing people argue over the sharpness. The photo's look pretty good, but weren't generally taken in a studio, they aren't "tack sharp". While I see some photo's that are so sharp they cut, but were taken in a studio with perfect lighting, a tripod, three slave flashes, a flawless model and post processed. People still try to compare them, and no none of the photo's are mine.

Do you have any tips for getting sharp photos?

 

[LordOpie]

If your photo looks good at 1:1 on a computer monitor do you call it good?

Depends upon final use and application you're using.

If you're going to print and using photoshop, yeah, 1:1 is ok. If you're looking at a file in Acrobat/PDF, 300%.

That doesn't help you once you've shot the photo, but before you bother printing. Granted, if in photoshop, you can play with the various sharpen tools.

 

[Reactor]

Hows this:

It'd be a good Attention Whore pic....

 

[LordOpie]

well, it's a good photo, really captured the detail, like in the chainmail.

It depends upon your goal as to whether it's good enough. Maybe someone who commented in the other forum would've wanted more detail in the depth. Who cares if you're happy.

Do you often play with dolls?

 

[narlus]

that looks pretty damn sharp, esp as it's hard to tell any discernable detail on the plastic face of the doll.

i have never used a tripod or an IS-equipped lens, and i think i've been able to get pretty sharp photos most of the time. i think you just need to be cognizant of shutter speed, yr stance, and what you are shooting.

plus, sharpness isn't the be-all/end-all of a photo's quality...

 

[narlus]

btw, are you shooting jpg or RAW? if the latter, you'll want to do some PP sharpening. jpg sharpness can be fine straight out of the camera, and depending on the body it can be adjusted in-camera as well.

 

[LordOpie]

plus, sharpness isn't the be-all/end-all of a photo's quality...

qft

45

 

[PatBranch]

How much should jpegs from raw files be sharpened?

Is it enough to sharpen the raw file, or should the jpeg be sharpened only/too?

 

[LordOpie]

jpgs should only be used for the internet and you should keep them in another format until the final compression.

 

[narlus]

How much should jpegs from raw files be sharpened?

Is it enough to sharpen the raw file, or should the jpeg be sharpened only/too?

it really depends on personal preference, i think, but a good place to start for unsharp mask values in photoshop are 300/0.3/1

 

[LordOpie]

is that:

amount/radius/threshold

?

 

[narlus]

yepp.

 

[Reactor]

Well, the shot above was just a test shot, balancing the camera on a lens box. It was jpeg, and that's a crop saved at 90%qf. I'm going to test uot both lenses this weekend whne I have time. Right now it doesn't look like my hands are stable enough for most hand shots. The IS on the 70-200 really helps, but a 70-200 is really too big for everyday use on a digital camera witha 1.6 crop factor, which makes it effectively a 110-360.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Sharpness is really a personal preference thing. Photogs like to argue about it, but in the end - if it's sharp enough for you or your client/audience, then it's good!

 

[Transcend]

As long as it is sharp enough for clients to print, I could care less.

I will undersharpen for web, as LCDs are much sharper than CRTs. You have to oversharpen for print and then look at it at 25% on screen.

All RAW files need sharpening after the fact, JPEGS should be done in camera and it is usually adjustable on a dslr.

 

[Reactor]

Here are two pics, the first I thought was fine, but the front pedal is slightly out of focus. It needs more light but I'm still goofing around, and was bouncing my flash.

The I did a simple unsharp mask in gimp

And the picture I thought was fine is so sharp it will cut. It's so sharp it almost looks unnatural. But the unsharp mask damages the aesthetic quality of the bokeh. Which is going to make better prints? They both started as large (4k x 3k?) Jpegs at fine.

 

[Toshi]

it's not just sharpness: fixing the levels, white balance, etc. are also important... that said, i think an image is sharp if it's so at 100% in photoshop.

 

[Reactor]

New version color corrected.

 

[PatBranch]

That looks a lot better. The orange and green bokeh look really cool.

 

[Reactor]

That looks a lot better. The orange and green bokeh look really cool.

The room I shot the picture in has "wheat" colored walls and that shifted everything towards yellow, once I corrected it and ran an unsharp mask (3pixel, 65%, 5 threshold) it looked a lot better. I just printed it and it looks pretty good. I love the smooth creamy quality of the bokeh using the two L series lenses I have.

 

[narlus]

a thread you might find useful:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=254669

 

[binary visions]

If you want to keep the bokeh good, just duplicate the layer, unsharp mask on the new layer and paint out the area you don't want sharpened. Best of both worlds.

"Sharp" is so variable because you really need to consider the output. A picture that doesn't look sharp at 100% may be perfectly fine for web images or smaller prints, and may look just as good at that size as one that's razor sharp at 100%.