Obsession with Image Sharpness

[Shadowman]

I was very recently perusing youtube videos for discussions on image sharpness, which means I have the obsession. Found this five year old commentary on image sharpness.

https://www.gdanmitchell.com/2007/12...lthy-obsession

[chauncey]

which means I have the obsession.

As do I but...with my recent forays into the more artistic genre, I am finding it less important.

[Mike Buckley]

I am finding it less important.

Wow! That's no less a change than changing religions!

[Manfred M]

I find that I am using a tripod more and more just to improve the sharpness of my shots. It seems a bit silly to spend money on expensive lenses and then not getting the most out of them.

This has a side benefit too; shooting with a tripod slows me down and gets me to concentrate more on my composition and that too ends up improving my work. Not only are the shots sharper, the composition is a bit tighter too.

[Digital]

I find that I am using a tripod more and more just to improve the sharpness of my shots. It seems a bit silly to spend money on expensive lenses and then not getting the most out of them.

This has a side benefit too; shooting with a tripod slows me down and gets me to concentrate more on my composition and that too ends up improving my work. Not only are the shots sharper, the composition is a bit tighter too.

Manfred, well said.


Bruce

[Max von MeiselMaus]

I am the opposite to you, William. I started out being content with compositions and concepts and, having limited technical knowledge, I was happy if it was relatively in focus and noise free. 100% crops were not a place I needed or wanted to look at. A year or so ago I decided it was time to improve the technical quality of my photos and now it is a minor obsession. New lenses, better tripod, being more attentive to the ISO/shutter speed trade off in noise, using mirror lock up when the exposure time suggests it etc. Are my photos any better? Yes. And more reliably so. Am I at risk of becoming a true obsessive? I hope not. Not sure I am quite at the stage where I could confidently say there couldn't be further improvements, but I don't want concern with the technical tweaks to be at the cost of the process of thinking about concept. Then you get creative constipation, and no one wants to go there. But I don't think an interest in sharpness is a bad thing, providing it doesn't take over from everything else.

[Mike Buckley]

Sharpness is relative to the size being displayed and the distance between the display and the viewer. I characterize myself as being obsessed with obtaining relative sharpness as opposed to maximum sharpness. I rarely try to achieve maximum sharpness because my images are so rarely viewed at a size in which maximum sharpness improves the viewing experience.

[Mike Buckley]

It seems a bit silly to spend money on expensive lenses and then not getting the most out of them.

I would be willing to bet that your thinking about that actually has very little to do with the cost of the equipment, whether it's the lenses, the camera bodies or the accessories. It probably has to do more with your passion for photography itself and your passion for trying to make the highest quality image you can make. As an example, I would be similarly willing to bet that you and none of us get the most out of all but a few of our possessions. Instead, we tend to get the most out of our possessions only if we derive an above average amount of pleasure for whatever reason from them even if, sometimes especially if we don't have the opportunity to use them every day.

[tao2]

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept...

Look it up yerself...

[John 2]

I find that I am using a tripod more and more just to improve the sharpness of my shots. It seems a bit silly to spend money on expensive lenses and then not getting the most out of them.

This has a side benefit too; shooting with a tripod slows me down and gets me to concentrate more on my composition and that too ends up improving my work. Not only are the shots sharper, the composition is a bit tighter too.

I agree, well said but only where the situation allows it. Street photographers would have a problem but still require a degree of sharpness. I guess on thinking about it, sharpness is only important to the extent that any lack of it doesn't detract from the intent of the image being viewed.

[lukaswerth]

I have recently also given this topic some thought, and did some testing. My bottom line:
1) modern DLSRs have plenty of room for sharpness, even if the lenses are not the very best/newest.
2) lens sharpness is a selling argument of the industry.
3) maximum sharpness is not a purpose in itself. It is rather one of the factors which make up a picture, and it should be subjected to personal intentions when creating an image, just as flat field of deep field, color, monochrome or some sort of non-linear colors, proportions, whatever.
A lens which intrigues me is Lomography's Petzval lens; see

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/342...mm-f2-2-lens/2

This lens is certainly not the sharpest around, but it has a peculiar image quality which may just be what one wants.
You are making a similar decision whenver you expose an image with a wide-open lens instead of stopping down for maximum sharpness. A soft image may have its own aesthetic quality.

Lukas

[tclune]

The kind of photography you do will significantly impact your attitude toward sharpness. In portrait work, it doesn't strike me as the Holy Grail. But, in wildlife and birding photography, it is very important. I find that I routinely have to crop away more than 90% of my images because I "only" had 500mm reach on my DX camera. In that case, the final image may make anyone who views it a pixel peeper, and sharpness is a very big deal, indeed.

[Saorsa]

The kind of photography you do will significantly impact your attitude toward sharpness. In portrait work, it doesn't strike me as the Holy Grail. But, in wildlife and birding photography, it is very important. I find that I routinely have to crop away more than 90% of my images because I "only" had 500mm reach on my DX camera. In that case, the final image may make anyone who views it a pixel peeper, and sharpness is a very big deal, indeed.

As usual, 'that depends ...'.

If I am shooting a sitting bird or bug I want that to be as pin-sharp as possible. But, if I'm shooting behavior or action I'm willing to forgo sharpness. Here is an example. I was out in the woods trying to get shots of some small birds in pine trees. I heard some noise behind me and saw two young deer running through a flooded field. All I had time to do was turn quickly and start shooting as they ran by. With me moving and them running I never did manage to get focus to stabilize for a sharp image of flying water droplet behind them and they aren't actually very sharp themselves. Still, for me it captures a moment of joy that I still remember and in that memory, everything is brilliantly sharp and joyful.

[Stagecoach]

The kind of photography you do will significantly impact your attitude toward sharpness. In portrait work, it doesn't strike me as the Holy Grail. But, in wildlife and birding photography, it is very important. I find that I routinely have to crop away more than 90% of my images because I "only" had 500mm reach on my DX camera. In that case, the final image may make anyone who views it a pixel peeper, and sharpness is a very big deal, indeed.

Perhaps a simple take on this one is that 'sharpness' and it's 'significance' is relative to the type of subject, which has been mentioned already.

There are situations where you can use a tripod and every other means available to get best sharpness with some subjects and there are some subjects where this is absolutely not possible. The fact is that you can only use what is practical to achieve your image goal.

I learnt a lesson last year with a particular image that I was going to bin that my view of sharpness is not the same as others views on sharpness.

Grahame

[tclune]

As usual, 'that depends ...'.

If I am shooting a sitting bird or bug I want that to be as pin-sharp as possible. But, if I'm shooting behavior or action I'm willing to forgo sharpness. Here is an example. I was out in the woods trying to get shots of some small birds in pine trees. I heard some noise behind me and saw two young deer running through a flooded field. All I had time to do was turn quickly and start shooting as they ran by. With me moving and them running I never did manage to get focus to stabilize for a sharp image of flying water droplet behind them and they aren't actually very sharp themselves. Still, for me it captures a moment of joy that I still remember and in that memory, everything is brilliantly sharp and joyful.

Of course it depends, and of course there are levels of sharpness that are simply unobtainable. However, as a general feature, the sharpness that we want and expect varies with the kind of photograph. BTW, if I had taken the photo you shared, I would likely convert it to a painting. The form of presentation would prepare the viewer's expectation to better align with the painting. IME, paintings "take place" more in the viewer's mind than photos tend to, and that fits your aspirations for this shot AIUI. As always, YMMV.

[Black Pearl]

See below...

[William W]

The kind of photography you do will significantly impact your attitude toward sharpness. In portrait work, it doesn't strike me as the Holy Grail.

WW

[William W]

A quote of Dan G Mitchell, that I have hanging in my workplace:

“I have to say that worrying about which super sharp lens is a tiny bit sharper than the other super sharp lens might be a bit obsessive...”

[chauncey]

My view of sharpness took a header after seeing these "Synesthetic Landscapes" on LuLa...
https://luminous-landscape.com/

[Shadowman]

My view of sharpness took a header after seeing these "Synesthetic Landscapes" on LuLa...
https://luminous-landscape.com/

Nice link.