Discuss: When is a photo sharp enough?

[FowlersFreeTime]

Open question to the forum: When is a photo sharp enough?

I guess when I'm editing, blurred edges are not very noticeable when the photos are viewed at 25% or 50% but as you get closer to 100% things get less sharp very quickly. Maybe that's the limitation of APSC, or maybe the limitation of my skillset. As a result, I now run almost all my photos through ON1 noise reduction: yes, to remove higher ISO artifacts BUT predominantly to add some artificial sharpening. I shoot in RAW but I know when you set your camera to take jpegs, the camera does this sharpening for you. So this made me question whether my workflow was normal? or excessive?

It also made me think, do the full-frame owners and high resolution A7R folks ever wrestle with this? Or perhaps you never have to worry about what the photo looks like at 100% since you have so many mega-pickles at your disposal?

 

[Brownie]

Noise reduction removes detail. Software manufacturers add sharpening back in (in most cases) to counteract NR. So, if you're using NR to add sharpness you're not gaining much. Only use NR if it's necessary, and for the intended purpose.

It's really up to you. It's pretty easy to find over-sharpened images to get a feel for what you think is right. Shoot some jpegs and adjust the in-camera sharpness to your liking. If you're happy with the sharpness of the jpegs coming out of your camera, then create a preset to duplicate it. I have a preset 'base' sharpening amount that gets added automatically in post. If the image is a little soft but usable, I might add more.

I don't zoom in to 100% other than to check for noise, so I don't care. No one outside of photo forums or contest judging zooms in to 100%.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Good question. Obviously the 2 main things that influence sharpness are the lens and your shutter speed, the latter less so, but it plays it's part, so provided you have good glass and shoot at speeds fast enough to prevent blur, or shoot on a tripod, then nearly all shots should be sharp. DOF also has an influence, and focus point too, but then we are talking a different thing really.
What you do get is loss of detail at high ISO, and also, as Tim said, using NR and sharpening loses detail. I am pretty careful with how I use it, because I hate loss of detail in my shots, especially birds, I like to have as much feather detail as possible.
I personally do zoom in 100%, just to check.
So when is it sharp enough? When you are 100% happy with it.

 

[Gaz]

I think it’s a style all on its own, resulting from technology.

Mirrorless cameras with a suite of lenses and AI built in to increase sharpness corner to corner…. And then add focus stacking. Make sure the eyes are pin sharp and sparkling.

Those beautiful 50 year old lenses just don’t cut it, for the moment but they were just as much fun…..

And, now we have to spend hours in post processing? Sometimes I switch to Heif for the shear convenience of being able to flick that image of the sunrise to mum.

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 14mm F1.8 GM
• 14.0 mm
• ƒ/1.8
• 1/125 sec
• ISO 320

 

[Roland]

I believe the two picture show our problem with modern lenses. The old picture is from the foreground to the background in the same typ of blurry/focus. That‘s how I see the world now without my reading glasses. The modern lens photo shows a world that I don’t see. With f1.8, only a small part of the world is in focus, like looking through a high magnifying jewelry loupe.
In the second picture, the clock on the wall of the house is more in focus than the lady closer to us. Our brain rebels against such a circumstance and we believe something is wrong with the focus.
Maybe, the lens manufacturer just got it wrong with their race for even lower f stop lenses for pictures that mess with our brains. For my “brain” sanity, I might have to start a f16+ support group.

 

[Brownie]

The problem with the image in the second photo has far more to do with the FL than focus. The woman's head and everything at the sides are warped due to the wide angle. A little more aggressive lens correction may fix it, or maybe that's how the photographer likes it.

There are some perfectly fine old lenses and cameras out there. Many, many old lenses can hang just fine with modern sensors.

How about this one? No Exif because it was made a few years ago on a 1941 Argus A3 using Rollei Retro 80, film processed by the Darkroom, negative scanned and processed by me in Darktable. Sharp enough? DOF ok? There are others in the set not as sharp, which proves that the camera was more capable than the photographer.

000459210004 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Noise reduction removes detail. Software manufacturers add sharpening back in (in most cases) to counteract NR. So, if you're using NR to add sharpness you're not gaining much. Only use NR if it's necessary, and for the intended purpose.

It's really up to you. It's pretty easy to find over-sharpened images to get a feel for what you think is right. Shoot some jpegs and adjust the in-camera sharpness to your liking. If you're happy with the sharpness of the jpegs coming out of your camera, then create a preset to duplicate it. I have a preset 'base' sharpening amount that gets added automatically in post. If the image is a little soft but usable, I might add more.

I don't zoom in to 100% other than to check for noise, so I don't care. No one outside of photo forums or contest judging zooms in to 100%.

All good points Tim. Thank you for the sanity check.
In fact, now that you explained NR, it makes sense that ON1's NoNoise AI automatically adds sharpening to even out the result. So in the end, I was probably just wasting time.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Good question. Obviously the 2 main things that influence sharpness are the lens and your shutter speed, the latter less so, but it plays it's part, so provided you have good glass and shoot at speeds fast enough to prevent blur, or shoot on a tripod, then nearly all shots should be sharp. DOF also has an influence, and focus point too, but then we are talking a different thing really.
What you do get is loss of detail at high ISO, and also, as Tim said, using NR and sharpening loses detail. I am pretty careful with how I use it, because I hate loss of detail in my shots, especially birds, I like to have as much feather detail as possible.
I personally do zoom in 100%, just to check.
So when is it sharp enough? When you are 100% happy with it.

"So when is it sharp enough? When you are 100% happy with it." Well said!
By the way, unless its a moving target, like my daughter not sitting still or a group of running kids at a family event, I usually pick slower targets LOL. So motion blur is not a common problem for me. I think my usual gripe is probably lack of sharpness due to low light or, as you said, high ISO photos. This is why I thought I had to use ON1's noise reduction and sharpening on all of my shots. Then again, I see what you mean about feather details when I was editing some photos of peacocks; oversharpening made those feathers look terrible.
Cheers.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I think it’s a style all on its own, resulting from technology.

Mirrorless cameras with a suite of lenses and AI built in to increase sharpness corner to corner…. And then add focus stacking. Make sure the eyes are pin sharp and sparkling.

Those beautiful 50 year old lenses just don’t cut it, for the moment but they were just as much fun…..

View attachment 40193

And, now we have to spend hours in post processing? Sometimes I switch to Heif for the shear convenience of being able to flick that image of the sunrise to mum.

View attachment 40192

I guess that's what people mean when they say old cameras/lenses had "character"?
Plus we're so spoiled nowadays with cellphone cameras, you know the instant gratification and all; my mom tells me just use the phone to send her pics of her granddaughter because when I use my "real" camera, I take too long to send pictures. Mom definitely not pixel peeping to check sharpness LOL

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

I believe the two picture show our problem with modern lenses. The old picture is from the foreground to the background in the same typ of blurry/focus. That‘s how I see the world now without my reading glasses. The modern lens photo shows a world that I don’t see. With f1.8, only a small part of the world is in focus, like looking through a high magnifying jewelry loupe.
In the second picture, the clock on the wall of the house is more in focus than the lady closer to us. Our brain rebels against such a circumstance and we believe something is wrong with the focus.
Maybe, the lens manufacturer just got it wrong with their race for even lower f stop lenses for pictures that mess with our brains. For my “brain” sanity, I might have to start a f16+ support group.

LOL at the f16 support group.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Reviving this thread to ask the group if you all think this photo is soft, and if so, what could cause that?
Is the softness in the eye focus just because I was using f2.8 or because I was in the shade? The lens?
Or am I over-thinking it?

• Sony E 35mm f/1.8 OSS
• 35.0 mm
• ƒ/2.7999999523163
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 100

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Reviving this thread to ask the group if you all think this photo is soft, and if so, what could cause that?
Is the softness in the eye focus just because I was using f2.8 or because I was in the shade? The lens?
Or am I over-thinking it?
View attachment 49972

It's the 2.8. Very shallow DOF, and the further you are from your subject obviously makes it more noticeable. It's what I don't shoot 6.3 on the big zoom jnless it's really necessary due to poor light. I hate having the back edge of my subject being out of the focus plane.

 

[spudhead]

It's the 2.8. Very shallow DOF, and the further you are from your subject obviously makes it more noticeable. It's what I don't shoot 6.3 on the big zoom jnless it's really necessary due to poor light. I hate having the back edge of my subject being out of the focus plane.

So right Kev, not much to add to that really

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

f2.999999524 might have given you just that little bit extra dof

(This post may look stupid without the screen shot of the above exiv info, which wouldn't upload for some reason)

(It might look silly anyway, because it is)

 

[evacguy]

Reviving this thread to ask the group if you all think this photo is soft, and if so, what could cause that?
Is the softness in the eye focus just because I was using f2.8 or because I was in the shade? The lens?
Or am I over-thinking it?
View attachment 49972

I love this photograph. It is soft around the eyes (probably the f2.8), but I think its great on this image. Very nice photograph.

 

[Brownie]

What Ed said. Unless we're evaluating that photo for perfection, there's nothing wrong with it as a family snapshot.

 

[Roland]

I think, what we se as soft is the result of the baby skin. Take a picture of granddaddy and we would not have the discussion. To see somthing really sharp, we need contrast. Look at the hat where the two pieces are coming to gather and it is sharp.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

Thank you all for your input. I'm over thinking it. I think Sony (and all camera manufacturers) must love idiots like me because it means they can try and up-sell me to a full frame with more megapixels to satiate my pixel peeping. And even then, as stated by other forum members, that is a folly because I'm missing the point.
Cheers everyone.

 

[Thad E Ginathom]

Current photographic trends have educated us into wanting bokeh, which is unnatural, because we do not see the world like that with our eyes anyway, and/or pin sharpness, which can also be unrealistic and is often unkind.

I guess, success in a pic is getting the mix that we want. Either out of the camera or in post-processing.

 

[Clix Pix]

I don't shoot people much, but I do shoot a lot of macro and closeups. I also shoot wildlife (mostly water birds). For many of these types of varied images I like to have just one element in the image really, really sharp, and the rest softly fading off Into the wonderful bokeh Sony provides us with some of its fast lenses. It's about the settings, whether I want to use f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8 or f/2.0 and above to nail that sharpness precisely on the one particular part of the scene I want to emphasize..... And, yes, I do have to also work with that a bit in post-processing, too.

I love creamy, smooth bokeh, but, yes, it's not always desirable in some scenes and the photographer does have to make choices. Portraiture is hard, a real challenge, and as mentioned in other posts above, there are differences between shooting a vey young person (infant, toddler, pre-schooler) and someone who is in his or her seventh or eighth decade of time on this planet..... However, the key point to remember when shooting a person is, yes, aiming specifically for the eyes, and ensuring that they are sharp. Sony's lenses are pretty good at nailing focus on eyes, whether people, birds or animals.....

In a couple of different situations with the same lens recently, I shot a squirrel. In one of the images I just wanted him to be the primary focus, and so pretty much nailed him while having the distracting background soft and gently providing smooth bokeh. In another shot, on a different day, I took an alternate approach and wanted not just the squirrel but also his background to be in clear focus. it's a decision which needs to be made, time and time again, when shooting. In both situations, though, I made sure that those eyes were nailed as being in focus.

Your little girl is adorable! I think you will have many wonderful years capturing her with your cameras and lenses...... But, yes, ensuring that the eyes are in sharp focus (whether when shooting people, pets or wildlife)....is absolutely key. Then tinker with the rest of the settings. Everything else seems to fall into place after that.