MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: "Sharpness is an illusion" - Where do we need tack sharp images?  (Read 8030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ron

« on: February 08, 2014, 07:22 »
+4
"Sharpness is an illusion" ~ JPSDK

Jens made a comment the other day about sharpness being an illusion and I have been thinking about that. I think he is right. Because if an image looks sharp, its job done.

When I have a soft image, 30 megapixel, and its plastered against a skyscraper, it will look fine, it will look sharp. Only when I stick my nose up against it, it will be out of focus.

When I have a soft image, 10 megapixel, used in a magazine at Letter size or A4 vertical page ad, it will still look sharp. Even if I press the magazine up against my nose.

So soft images will have the illusion of being sharp when not viewed at 100% or when viewed from a large distance.

So, why/when do we need 100% tack sharp in focus images?

Please dont troll this thread with comments like 'if you cant shoot in focus go do something else', blah blah. We all can/know how too shoot in focus images. This thread is meant as talking point, something to think about.

Cheers.


Beppe Grillo

« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2014, 07:44 »
+2
Generally what you see on your monitor is @72 dpi (it is not absolutely true today, but let's consider that it is)
When you print an image in a magazine you print it @300 dpi - 60 lines/cm (according to the support and the magazine it can change, a luxury Art magazine would prefer 354 dpi - 70 lines/cm for example), so the printed image seen at 100% will have a size equal to 25% of the one seen at 100% on your monitor. This will give you an illusion of sharpness.
To this fact we can add that the screen (color separation) used for the print gives an illusion of sharpness too, despite this a lot of dtp professionals preparing the images for print prefer over sharpened images than under sharpened one.

The way you perceive a print image depends of a lot of factors, some of these are the resolution of the image, the contrast of the image, the micro-contrast of the image, the quality of the inks, the quality of the paper, the quality of your eyes, the distance from the eyes to the image; all this in an interdependent way of course.

Consider that to see a whole image at a glance, the distance image/eye should be about 3 times the length of the diagonal of the image.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 07:56 by Beppe Grillo »

« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2014, 07:49 »
+3
Totally agree with Ron.  If it looks sharp at a point where the eye sees the whole picture, job done

« Reply #3 on: February 08, 2014, 07:52 »
0
Good, Ron.
 :D
This can become a very interesting discussion.
I will add to it later, when people have posted and I have produced some clear and "shareworthy" thoughts and found some good examples.



Ron

« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2014, 08:26 »
+3
It also might explain why agencies, like SS, double the size of an image, because they know this. If I have a sharp image, and double the size there is no way you can keep the original sharpness. So apparently focus is not all that important, however, the agency wants a 100% tack sharp image, in order to be able to double the size at best possible quality.

Maybe thats the answer to my question, or at lease one possible answer.

« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2014, 08:47 »
+11
Many designers crop out a small portion of an image to use, so it is important the whole image , or at least the important part, is sharp at 100%, so as to satisfy their needs as well as someone who uses the whole thing.

« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2014, 08:47 »
0
I agree that if an image is sharp enough for the customers application - it is job done.

but by pushing the standards ever upward, the agencies are trying to assure that whether a customer wants to use an image for web use or for a full sized banner or billboard, it will qualify for any application.
It also 'teaches' us as photographers to have a high standard when we review our own images, and I think that is a good thing.

there is always going to be a 'gray zone' where one persons perception may not meet anothers.
so there will always be some measure of discrepancy when it comes to 'acceptable' and 'unnacceptable', I think that will never change.

Beppe Grillo

« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2014, 08:48 »
0
It also might explain why agencies, like SS, double the size of an image, because they know this. If I have a sharp image, and double the size there is no way you can keep the original sharpness. So apparently focus is not all that important, however, the agency wants a 100% tack sharp image, in order to be able to double the size at best possible quality.

Maybe thats the answer to my question, or at lease one possible answer.

This is a good point Ron!

I had always said that if an image was good seen @50% it was enough good for print (and generally it is).
And for this reason I never understood the obstinacy of the agencies to have sharp and very good focused images @100%.

Considering what you wrote changes my point of view now :)

« Reply #8 on: February 08, 2014, 08:56 »
+2
Because "tack sharp" is a selling point to your client whereas "by the way, some of my work may not be sharp at 100%" is definitely not.

As soon as you allow any hint of downside into your product, even if in your opinion the client doesn't really need that feature, you are opening the door for the next guy who will use it to close the sale. The same rules apply to photography as apply to widgets and thingamajigs.






Ron

« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2014, 08:56 »
+1
Many designers crop out a small portion of an image to use, so it is important the whole image , or at least the important part, is sharp at 100%, so as to satisfy their needs as well as someone who uses the whole thing.
Aha, see, that makes a lot of sense as well.

Ron

« Reply #10 on: February 08, 2014, 09:00 »
0
I fully agree that work needs to be tack sharp. There is no doubt about aiming for the best possible quality. But its not be all and end all, apparently, because there are a lot of uses for images where the 'illusion of sharpness' will suffice.

« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2014, 09:22 »
+1
Wasn't Jens making more of a philosophical point than talking about what makes an image sellable as microstock? If you blow any picture up enough it will cease to be sharp.

In terms of general photography, sharpness is there to be used as you like. In some cases images that are largely or entirely unsharp might be better (more evocative) than sharp versions.

This pretty clearly has missed focus, but is it any the worse for it? http://www.atgetphotography.com/Images/Photos/Lartigue/lartigue_13.jpg

« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2014, 09:45 »
0
Sharpness really does depend on the spirit of the age or spirit of the time (Zeitgeist).  Have a look at one of my favorite Photographers from the 1940s and 1950s . . . .  Saul Leiter.  Sharpness wasn't an important factor.  Photography in those days was always printed small, now it seems the larger the better, often degrading what could have been a nice print.

https://www.google.com/search?q=saul+leiter+early+color&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAGOovnz8BQMDAx8HixKXfq6-QbJheXFxBtPq6j7zhIKJC6ZVxq5pc-ycUShrBwDWna0kKwAAAA&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=JfxwUsHdOcbZswbOv4DoBA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=612

« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2014, 10:14 »
+3
There's a difference between "I intentionally shot this out of focus on purpose for an artistic reason" and " I shot this pineapple in my kitchen at night with my macro at 1/10 2.8 handheld and it shifted because of a nearby earthquake".

« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2014, 10:23 »
0
There's a difference between "I intentionally shot this out of focus on purpose for an artistic reason" and " I shot this pineapple in my kitchen at night with my macro at 1/10 2.8 handheld and it shifted because of a nearby earthquake".

Yup. I doubt if anybody is defending the latter. Though as a record of the earthquake......

Goofy

« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2014, 11:30 »
0
I noticed on Fine Art of America the viewer can select any area on the image and zoom in to see if it is sharp there. I believe they are the only one that allows the potential buyers this capability....

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2014, 11:51 »
0
I noticed on Fine Art of America the viewer can select any area on the image and zoom in to see if it is sharp there. I believe they are the only one that allows the potential buyers this capability....
IStock has done it for years.

Added: Fotolia also allows several levels of zoom, I'm not sure if it zooms to full size.

Also: don't you find FAA's zoom extremely hit and miss? I know it's supposed to be only every second square on a grid that can be zoomed (annoying if the critical bit is on an 'off' squre), but I've found sometimes a group of adjacent squares being zoomable, but far more often, no square actually zooms, you just get a constant timer thingy which never resolves.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 11:57 by ShadySue »


« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2014, 15:29 »
+2
What I said earlier was this:

"Sharpness is an illusion based on focus and the quality of light."

Focus and sharpness is not the same.

A photograph can be in focus and yet not appear very sharp. That would be the case with low contrast textures, such as clouds, water or with a rubber balloon.
Another photo can appear sharp, because of the physical textures, such as hair, and would appear even sharper if the light produces micro contrasts.

So the perception of sharpness depends on several factors:
The photo must be in focus.
The camera, or lens must be able to resolve textures.
The light must suppost sharpness and not work against it. (light can flicker, or there can be counterproductive secondary light sources).
Postprocessing can enhance sharpness by deepening excisting contrasts. Contrasts can be both shadows and colour contrasts, (eg you can both darken an excisting black shadow, and add a colour tone to it (blue)).


Below is an example of a photo that is in focus and does not appear sharp. Light was very soft and the whole field worked as a giant reflector, so the light source is everywhere and such there are no shadows to produce contrasts.

« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2014, 15:35 »
+1
And below a photo that appears very sharp.
Note that the hairs around the legs and the foldings in the segments have shadows. It is a studio shot and the stobes have been arranged to enhance certain textures and not others.


« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2014, 15:42 »
+1
And here is a photo where the last fish is not in focus, but still they all appear sharp, the first fish are so sharp that you buy the illusion and think they all are. As Ron said: "The picture looks sharp, and then its good enough"


« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 18:25 by JPSDK »

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2014, 16:38 »
0

Focus and sharpness is not the same.

A photograph can be in focus and yet not appear very sharp. That would be the case with low contrast textures, such as clouds, water or with a rubber balloon.
Another photo can appear sharp, because of the physical textures, such as hair, and would appear even sharper if the light produces micro contrasts.
+1

« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2014, 16:57 »
0
Compared to a classic painting  a photo features (assuming it is well focused) more sharpness. But still classic paintings can also show  many details accentuated. And portrait photography with, for example, a Nikon D800, a 105s f 2.8 lens can look so sharp that they just do not work well. So I think sharpness is a relative size.

« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2014, 17:18 »
0
Compared to a classic painting  a photo features (assuming it is well focused) more sharpness. But still classic paintings can also show  many details accentuated. And portrait photography with, for example, a Nikon D800, a 105s f 2.8 lens can look so sharp that they just do not work well. So I think sharpness is a relative size.

What you say is, that sharpness is not always benifitial to an image, and I agree on that. The yellow rape is an example.
The nikor 105 has inbuilt problems, to achive sharpness in the dof area, it has lost bokeh. ( bokeh means the quality of the out of dof areas). If you scroll through nikor 105 photos you can see all kind of artifact double lines in the background. I would say, the nikor 105 is only suitable for product or studio works, not for macro wildlife. I know, - people would kill me for saying that.

« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2014, 19:45 »
0
There's a difference between "I intentionally shot this out of focus on purpose for an artistic reason" and " I shot this pineapple in my kitchen at night with my macro at 1/10 2.8 handheld and it shifted because of a nearby earthquake".

You mean that isn't an acceptable way of shooting? I mean, I do live in California.  Crap, I need to reshoot my entire port!! ;D

Goofy

« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2014, 23:55 »
0
There's a difference between "I intentionally shot this out of focus on purpose for an artistic reason" and " I shot this pineapple in my kitchen at night with my macro at 1/10 2.8 handheld and it shifted because of a nearby earthquake".

You mean that isn't an acceptable way of shooting? I mean, I do live in California.  Crap, I need to reshoot my entire port!! ;D

See that 'IS' button on your lens? You might want to use it...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
34 Replies
14441 Views
Last post November 01, 2015, 15:54
by amperial
4 Replies
8948 Views
Last post December 01, 2010, 18:38
by ShadySue
5 Replies
8697 Views
Last post September 17, 2011, 22:33
by PeterChigmaroff
25 Replies
49857 Views
Last post May 26, 2015, 05:40
by cathyslife
8 Replies
5338 Views
Last post August 21, 2013, 23:16
by stockphoto-images.com

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors