• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.

Is This Shot Acceptably Sharp ?

shotokan101

Banned
Seen a few comments lately about sharpness and been wondering what is an acceptable level of sharpness ?

Took the shot below yesterday as a test and would like some feedback on how sharp - or otherwise it appears :)


0) ;)

DSC00019-resized.jpg



You (hopefully) should be able to right-click and view at full (uploaded) resolution of 2048 - no sharpening in PP at all....


JIm
 
Last edited:

shotokan101

Banned
29 views and no comments/opinions...... wonder what that means ? :)

Jim
 

topgazza

Distinguished Member
Apart from being a lovely shot of a cat who looks far too experienced to be bothered it looks fine to me. Nice detail where it counts, whiskers and the nose area and the one visible eye. Not sure what some see with sharpness as the human eye only sees so much and some things can look over sharp IMO.

But as a picture the cat is perfect fur and whiskers certainly look crisp enough for me where it should be.
 

shotokan101

Banned
Looks like the focus is on the cats nose? It looks plenty sharp enough in the plane of focus.

Thanks Rob - it was indeed spot on the nose with centre AF sensor and with the lens wide open at 55mm for test purposes.


Mike.P®;14562989 said:
Dunno Im still waiting for it to open on this 8 year old laptop Im using. :rolleyes:

LOL - I'll check back (much) later Mike :laugh:

JIm
 

shotokan101

Banned
Apart from being a lovely shot of a cat who looks far too experienced to be bothered it looks fine to me. Nice detail where it counts, whiskers and the nose area and the one visible eye. Not sure what some see with sharpness as the human eye only sees so much and some things can look over sharp IMO.

But as a picture the cat is perfect fur and whiskers certainly look crisp enough for me where it should be.

Thanks - that's good to know - and glad you like the shot too :smashin:

JIm
 

eduk

Distinguished Member
Nowt wrong with the nose. Obviously not much depth due to it being wide open.

On the subject, have a look at this. Sigma 120-400mm at 400mm f8 from 1.7 metres. :)

http://i52.tinypic.com/303a9ms.jpg

Don't forget to resize it.
 
Last edited:

shotokan101

Banned
Nowt wrong with the nose. Obviously not much depth due to it being wide open.

On the subject, have a look at this. Sigma 120-400mm at 400mm f8 from 1.7 metres. :)

http://i52.tinypic.com/303a9ms.jpg

Don't forget to resize it.

Cheers Eddie - looks pretty good - full res. upload would be good - that's stopped down a bit though ?

With hindsight I should have shot a subject with some detail in the corner as well.... but not bad (it seems ) for the SAM 18-55 Kit lens wide open :)


Lookes sharp enought to me :)

Cheers Simon :cool:


looks sharp enough to me!

Thanks Darth - good to get a variety of opinions regarding the perception of "sharpness" :)

Jim
 

OrbitalPete

Well-known Member
Surely 'acceptably sharp' is completely subjective and fairly meaningless?

Some people seem to get far too wound up about whether their image is some given quantity of 'sharp' or not, when composition and lighting are what they should be worrying about.

If the thing you are focussing on is in focus, then it's all good. Not to mention the fact that compression of images to fit them into a screen resolution will muck around with apparent sharpness anyway. The only way to really assess a lenses sharpness (assuming it is within the standard deviation of lens quality, and not just a bad/front/back focussing lens) is to pixel peep, which I hope we can all agree is a pointless excercise. In the real world there's far more photos spoilt by having the wrong aperture setting than by having a lens which may or may not be a tiny bit soft.

Not having a go at you Jim - just needed to braindump that rant and I know you're thickskinned enough to let it sit in this thread without thinking I'm aiming it at you :D (not that I'm aiming it at anyone in particular - just get a bit bored of 'is this sharp or not' posts). No doubt some will disagree anyway :D
 
Last edited:

maxzuk

Active Member
Looks sharp to me though it would have helped to number it :rotfl:

And the cropping to tight on ears :rotfl:
 
Last edited:

twist

Distinguished Member
The 18-55 SAM is a sharp enough lens, lets face it, its a £50 lens and for that price it performs very well.
 

shotokan101

Banned
It's sharp enough for me too!!!

Raj

Thanks Raj :)


Surely 'acceptably sharp' is completely subjective and fairly meaningless?

Some people seem to get far too wound up about whether their image is some given quantity of 'sharp' or not, when composition and lighting are what they should be worrying about.

If the thing you are focussing on is in focus, then it's all good. Not to mention the fact that compression of images to fit them into a screen resolution will muck around with apparent sharpness anyway. The only way to really assess a lenses sharpness (assuming it is within the standard deviation of lens quality, and not just a bad/front/back focussing lens) is to pixel peep, which I hope we can all agree is a pointless excercise. In the real world there's far more photos spoilt by having the wrong aperture setting than by having a lens which may or may not be a tiny bit soft.

Not having a go at you Jim - just needed to braindump that rant and I know you're thickskinned enough to let it sit in this thread without thinking I'm aiming it at you :D (not that I'm aiming it at anyone in particular - just get a bit bored of 'is this sharp or not' posts). No doubt some will disagree anyway :D

Why YOU!.... :laugh: <kidding>

I agree entirely Pete and to a extent that's partly why I posted the shot and the query.

When I view shots on AVF - or elsewhere - my primary interest is in the content of the image (and yes I know - whether it's numbered or cropped too tightly.... but that comes well down the line....:rolleyes: ;)) and not whether it's perfectly in focus or "ultra sharp".

Don't get me wrong I think that there are certain types of shot where the subject matter does "benefit" from good sharpness/detail-resolution - e.g. birds shots with feather detail etc. but for a lot of stuff overall composition and content and timing are much more important (IMO).

I was just curious as to how other subjectively assessed that particular shot - especially as it is just the Kit lens with my Sony.

Thanks for the input - I didn't even need my thick skin TBH Pete :D


Mike.P®;14563572 said:
Still waiting for it to download :rolleyes:

:eek::eek:


Looks sharp to me though it would have helped to number it :rotfl:

And the cropping to tight on ears :rotfl:

:rotfl: - Thanks - "Done" ;) - and there was me thinking that the funky exposure would hide the other ear :laugh:


The 18-55 SAM is a sharp enough lens, lets face it, its a £50 lens and for that price it performs very well.

Cheers - I think so too - nice and light and reasonably fast AF - if the 18-70 had got as good feedback I don't think I'd have bothered with my Sigma 17-70 TBH... which reminds me I still want to pick up a good SAM 17-70 to have a play with :rolleyes:

Jim
 
Last edited:

eduk

Distinguished Member
Cheers - I think so too - nice and light and reasonably fast AF - if the 18-70 had got as good feedback I don't think I'd have bothered with my Tamron 17-70 TBH... which reminds me I still want to pick up a good SAM 17-70 to have a play with :rolleyes:

Jim

I wouldn't bother with it either if you can't tell that it is a Sigma.
 

shotokan101

Banned
I wouldn't bother with it either if you can't tell that it is a Sigma.

:rotfl:

....would be soooo much easier if I just switched to Nikon - wouldn't need to bother with all these more reasonably priced third party alternatives from multiple vendors.... ;)

JIm
 

shotokan101

Banned
I honestly think that it is a good shot. Sharpness is good. And the focus compliments with the reaction of the cat. :smashin:

Thanks :cool: - I must admit I do think it captures the disdain with which our cats usually view me quite well :D

Jim
 

eduk

Distinguished Member
:rotfl:

....would be soooo much easier if I just switched to Nikon - wouldn't need to bother with all these more reasonably priced third party alternatives from multiple vendors.... ;)

JIm

Alternatives? Don't be ridiculous, we all know that the are only a handful of Sony lenses.
 

senu

Distinguished Member
29 views and no comments/opinions...... wonder what that means ? :)

Jim

It means
yes it is. at all sizes
For some odd reason Im seeing it in full as I type!. :laugh:
Generally Speaking if you view, sharpen use NR at 100% it is often Fine . You cant get better than the intrinsic optical sharpness of the lens .. you have only so much leeway in PP ( even Raw) before it begins to show
 

shotokan101

Banned
It means
yes it is. at all sizes
For some odd reason Im seeing it in full as I type!. :laugh:
Generally Speaking if you view, sharpen use NR at 100% it is often Fine . You cant get better than the intrinsic optical sharpness of the lens .. you have only so much leeway in PP ( even Raw) before it begins to show

Yeah - well you know how it is - wait for ages for a bus (or comments) and then 3 or 4 all come at once :D

Thanks for the feedback though it is quite useful - especially for someone like myself who attracted the "occasional" criticism for oversharpening and TBH never really knew I was doing it - but now I "think" I've got the idea better understood in LR - if I should feel the need that is :)

JIm
 
D

Deleted member 27989

Guest
Its ok I guess, but with the way it is focussed the sharpness is not jumping out. The neck and the chest are very soft but not so clearly to my brain that it is out of focus and thus my initial reaction is that it is soft. It takes a few looks to see what is 'wrong' with it.

Hope that makes sense and is constructive.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Fidelity in Motion's David Mackenzie talks about his work on disc encoding & the future of Blu-ray
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom