what is going on in these pictures?

[throndor]

I sometimes come upon some photos that i can not believe the sharpness..
A couple of examples could be

photoSIG » The shoemaker

and

photoSIG » A character from the old city of Jerusalem

What do these photos share in common (besides men with beards).
Is it the sharpness , is it the contrast or is it good post-processing..

And i wonder; sharpness is an attribute of image quality, and not of the subject.. So theorically i should be able to shoot anyones portrait in a nicely lit environment and get that sharp look... But surely i can not..

What is the reason for this dramatic sharpness?

[Gooshin]

that image was taken using a Canon 40D with, most likely, the 70-200 F2.8 USM L... maybe the IS

at 200mm, f2.8, a shutter speed of 1/2000 and ISO 200


#1 using a shallow depth of field to seperate the subject from the background often overshadows any sort of base sharpness (or lack of it)

#2 such a high shutter speed means very little movement (on your part) impacts the image, even though there is a rule that camera shake is eliminated when you shoot at 1/focal length (altho i prefer a general 1/focal length X 2 to be on the safe side)

you can never have too much shutter speed when your goal is to have as sharp an image as possible

people move, your hands move, the camera moves, the air moves, etc etc etc

#3 chances are, this was taken off a tripod, this magnifies your ability to take sharp pictures (esp of still objects) combined with the fast shutter speed

#4 low iso, low iso means cleaner detail and less noise.

#5 while i could be wrong, i am 95% sure that this image has been post processed, sharpness included

when you have a large MP image, with little noise that is initially very detailed, adding to the sharpness is very easy.




having said that, on to your second question, but before that, please tell me your equipment.

[throndor]

I shoot with the humble duo of k100d super and 18-55 kit lens.. purchased a smc-50mm f/1.4 which i will recieve next week..

Is there a possibility that i will not be able to shoot images this sharp with my available equipment even if i use them at f-stops and focal lenghts that they perform best..

[Gooshin]

yes and no

if you pixel peep your images you will be able to see a difference, otherwise..

remember that shallow DOF is key here

with your kit lens, you dont start getting good results till 5.6 or even 8


try this for an excersize

find a mellow background scene such as a beige brick wall or a leafy/foresty type thing, place your subject (friend, wife, whatever) on a chair about 30 feet away from the background

make sure its daylight, but nothing shining too bright,

get a tripod!

position yourself about 6-8 feet away from your subject and use your kit lens at around 40-45mm and set it to whatever the considered "best" focal length is

the goal here is to not shoot at inifinity, but somewhere in the middle

shoot raw

lowest ISO and check your shutter speed, try to aim for atleast 1/500

put your camera into 2-sec delay, this will give you mirror lockup to elminate shutter slap

also put the lens hood on

take off any "uv" filters you may have, they are crap and are best used to fill up recycling boxes, that is their primary use.

compose, shoot!

process and see for yourself if you can get some decent sharpness out of it.

[silent_eyes]

Originally Posted by throndor

I sometimes come upon some photos that i can not believe the sharpness..
A couple of examples could be

photoSIG » The shoemaker

and

photoSIG » A character from the old city of Jerusalem

What do these photos share in common (besides men with beards).
Is it the sharpness , is it the contrast or is it good post-processing..

And i wonder; sharpness is an attribute of image quality, and not of the subject.. So theorically i should be able to shoot anyones portrait in a nicely lit environment and get that sharp look... But surely i can not..

What is the reason for this dramatic sharpness?

I don't really see anything so out-of-this-world sharp in those photos. First one is regular shot, with some unsharp mask or something applied in post-processing, and second one is also post-processed quite a bit, plus hair with backlight gives appearence of really sharp images. Then again, all photos with lots of contrast appear sharper.
Most of "it's tack sharp" or "it's quite soft" talk is reserved just for pixel-peeping, and mostly people who complain about their "soft" images just lack experience with processing 'em. Usually after resizeing. So, considering all things mentioned above, after you finish all your post-processing and downsize your images to let's say 1000px, save one as it is, and then save another one with Unsharp mask applied, amount 300-500% and size 0,125-0,2. Then compare results, I guess you'll see improvement no matter which body+lens combination used. Using 18-55 can give really good results, just not in the 18-20mm area, and at 55mm, but you should get really good stuff around 30-45mm, and f/5,6-8...

[Lowell Goudge]

Originally Posted by throndor

I shoot with the humble duo of k100d super and 18-55 kit lens.. purchased a smc-50mm f/1.4 which i will recieve next week..

Is there a possibility that i will not be able to shoot images this sharp with my available equipment even if i use them at f-stops and focal lenghts that they perform best..

Forget that BS about your humble K100Dsuper.

This was taken with the very humble *istD.

Sharpness is all about lens, exposure, and a good apature. This first image is no post processing, only a minor crop.

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/106132-post4.html

[mingdie]

You have been given some good advice from Gooshin and others and I agree. You can get those sharp photos with the kit lens.
I see that you have purchased a 50 f/1.4 and that will give you a real shallow depth of field. That will help to give the perception that the photo is sharper. Here are two photos with the M50mm f/1.4. The first have a more shallow dof and the second a bit wider as I wanted the background more in focus. Do you see the difference?






Cheers
Eddie

[egordon99]

You will NOT be able to get a shot like the one with the bearded man in Jerusalem with your current equipment. You might get close by using the 50mm at wide open (or close to it) but you'd have to be fairly close to the subject (MUCH closer than you'd need to be if you had 200mm f/2.8) which would alter the perspective compared to the 200mm shot and the background blur would be quite different.

Originally Posted by throndor

Is there a possibility that i will not be able to shoot images this sharp with my available equipment even if i use them at f-stops and focal lenghts that they perform best..

[Gooshin]

there is always photoshop and layering

[MRRiley]

Both of the shots in the OP have been heavily post processed. There are photoshop filters that apply these effects. Very similar to HDR! Very little to do with the lenses used though you do have to start with an acceptably sharp image in the first place.

[little laker]

It isn't quite as sharp, but take into consideration how fast the subject was moving in this photograph. And you'll know just how sharp the K100D can be.

Shot in JPG, right out of the camera. Then re-sized smaller.

And that was done with an OLD cheap Tokina 70-210 f4-5.6, manual focus lens.

So your camera is capable of nice sharp pic's
Sorry, I'm not at home for the next week, so I can't post anything bigger.

[egordon99]

It's quite obvious that given the right lighting/lens/camera operator that the K20D can produce sharp pictures, as can pretty much ANY DSLR available on the market today.

It's not the camera, but the photographer/light/lens. But I'm afraid that given the OP's equipment, he'll have a hard time duplicating that "Sharp subject/obliterated blurred background" look.

[Marc Sabatella]

Originally Posted by egordon99

It's not the camera, but the photographer/light/lens. But I'm afraid that given the OP's equipment, he'll have a hard time duplicating that "Sharp subject/obliterated blurred background" look.

I wouldn't be so sure. Of course, it's easier at 200mm and f/2.8, but it can be done even with the kit lens. The main trick would be making sure the background is very far away compared to the subject. One the 50/1.4 arrives, it would be a piece of cake.

Really, aside from the general idea of a well-lit contrasty subject against a distant background, which always makes for a striking look, there picture in question didn't look particularly unusual to me - almost any camera/lens could produce such an effect if you set the shot up right. Of course, I saw only a screen-sized version. Maybe if I saw it in full 100%-sized glory, the detail would be more impressive. But again, set up the shot right, and just about any camera/lens could produce results that would look similar at that reduced size.

[throndor]

So after reading the replies word by word for a couple of times (thanx for all by the way), i think not only the photos were sharp but i was decieved by a couple of other things that seemed like sharpness to my untrained eyes..

As far as i can tell, the effect that caught my attention was partly a result of ;

- the background being nicely focused out leaving only the subject at DOF

- subjects that have inherent contrast as of their nature.. (like white beards, prone
facial creases)

- the photos were PS'ed for even more contrast

- the light is used so that it compliments the creases on clothes and face (as in light
that is not washing all the shadows off)

- good sharpness afterall

So it is kinda safe to say that "it is not only the quantitative sharpness that makes it look the way it is, it is also because it's good photography"..


Is there any idea about what the PS work might be? The shoemakers jacket looks like the HDR works i've seen elsewhere but his facial tones seem real enough.. Do not have any cles about the jerusalem guy though..that seems so real..

[mingdie]

You got the idea. Have a look at this thread where the ps workflow for the fashion industry is discussed. Try Benjinkan's method and see what you think.

Workflow Suggestion

Cheers
Eddie