[Fenwoodian]

.
Today I was visiting another photography blog (fotozones.com). I saw a photo of a red flower and was impressed by it incredible sharpness. Click here to see this photo (located at the very top of the thread). Please be sure to click on this image (twice) to view it full sized. This may be the sharpest "non-pixel shift" image that I've seen in a long time.

The photo is by the famous close up photographer "Michael Erlewine".

So often we read posts or reviews that claim how "tack sharp" an image is. Well, this flower image of Michael Erlewine's image is beyond "tack sharp". Erlewine takes sharpness to a new level in this photo.

Maybe we need to come up with a new phase (über sharp? insanely sharp? cut-your-eyeballs sharp?) to use when describing an image that's as sharp as Mr. Erlewine's flower image? Or better yet, might there be some type of quantitative method for rating the sharpness of an image that the average photographer could use that doesn't require a lab and expensive equipment?

Before seeing Erlewine's red flower photo I thought that the strawberries photo I took today (see below) was sharp. Now I realize how wrong I was. I have a long way to go to reach the "summit of sharpness mountain"!
.
.

[IMG][/IMG]

---

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 06-22-2018 at 06:37 PM.

[DeadJohn]

The linked photo may have used focus stacking. Just a guess because it looks like the flower has more depth of field than the stem.

[photoptimist]

Interesting! That stunning image is downsampled, oversharpened, and with a contrast-enhancing tone curve which gives it the appearance of extreme sharpness. I doubt the original RAW file looked sharp.

Perceptual sharpness is a curious beast. There used to be some film emulsions that did edge enhancement in the chemistry. The developed density of highly exposed areas was especially high right next to areas with less exposure. The enhanced edge contrast made the image look sharp even though the film's ability to resolve detail was worse than other "less sharp" films.

[stevebrot]

The photo is by the famous close up photographer "Michael Erlewine".

The linked photo may have used focus stacking. Just a guess because it looks like the flower has more depth of field than the stem.

That would be my guess too. Michael is known for his innovative stacking techniques several of which were discussed when he was active here at PF and was trying to bend the K-3 and K-1 to his will though with only limited success.


Steve

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-22-2018 at 07:15 PM.

[pentaxfall]

I looked at the picture posted in that link. Flower looks sharper than the flower in real life. I think pictures will continue to become sharp and more sharp, and viewer will also get conditioned to like them. Well companies need a reason to release next version and stay in business

I have seen videos of applying low-pass filters for isolation and sharpening, etc. I like that skill but that is different from Photography skill. It is type of Digital Art. For me photography skill is about getting the shot right at the time of shooting.

[Sandy Hancock]

Nice. I'm pretty sure DeadJohn is right though. For a single image shot wide open with an old lens, your strawberries are impressive.

I reckon my A645 120/4.0 macro is pretty sharp on the 645Z.

Hand held, ISO 400



And a 100% crop of another hand-held shot at ISO 800

[bertwert]

Nice sharp photos, Fenwoodian and Sandy.

However, is this whole sharpness thing overrated? It sure is nice to have razor sharp edges along, but how important is it to the overall aesthetics - that's the question I pose to you. Should the subject, composition, exposure not come first before the technical qualities of the lens. Not that I'm saying there's anything wrong with sharpness, or with your photo examples posted above, but I'm pondering aloud. Of course, it does improve an image, to an extent. If one simply can get an image pleasing to the eye, but it's tack sharp, what good is that? I think there needs to be more focus on the artistic and creative side than the sharpness et al side, the razor sharpness would just be icing on the cake. Just something to think about, my 2 cents.

[Sandy Hancock]

Quite right bertwert.

Here is the full image of that yellow rose.



Only when I processed it did I realise how sharp it really was - the inspiration for the image was the form, colour, and background.

[bertwert]

Quite right bertwert.

Here is the full image of that yellow rose.



Only when I processed it did I realise how sharp it really was - the inspiration for the image was the form, colour, and background.

That's an exceptional image there, perfect, the sharpness is really the delicately designed icing on the cake here.

[Fenwoodian]

However, is this whole sharpness thing overrated? It sure is nice to have razor sharp edges along, but how important is it to the overall aesthetics - that's the question I pose to you. Should the subject, composition, exposure not come first before the technical qualities of the lens.

I certainly agree that the overall image quality is the golden ring we all strive for.

But when you are competing against other photographers who are also selling large, framed, fine art prints, and everybody's photos all have great compostion/subject/exposure, sometimes the differentiating factor is the sharpness of the image. When selling large prints, having a sharper product can be the deciding factor in the eyes of some potential customers. At least that's been my observation at art fairs/galleries that I've been to.

[bertwert]

I certainly agree that the overall image quality is the golden ring we all strive for.

But when you are competing against other photographers who are also selling large, framed, fine art prints, and everybody's photos all have great compostion/subject/exposure, sometimes the differentiating factor is the sharpness of the image. When selling large prints, having a sharper product can be the deciding factor in the eyes of some potential customers. At least that's been my observation at art fairs/shows I've been to.

Very valid point, thanks for posting replying

I guess I was more thinking that for beginners, such as myself, one should focus on the fundamental basics first. It didn't really cross my find about professionals selling fine art.

[Digitalis]

when you are competing against other photographers who are also selling large, framed, fine art prints, and everybody's photos all have great compostion/subject/exposure, sometimes the differentiating factor is the sharpness of the image.

I find that the average consumer buying prints to decorate their home are more interested in subject and colour. Photographers who prioritize sharpness in their work often sacrifice quality of subject or composition* in pursuit of their goals....which is in my opinion mildly absurd as those who myopically pursue hyper-sharpness often produce the most uninteresting images.

Young hare by Albrecht Durer is a work of remarkable precision, and a departure from the stylized symbolism of the renaissance. However I'd rather hang the impressionist Van Gogh's starry night on my wall than a realistic watercolour of a rabbit on my wall. Sometimes the impression is more interesting than the actual thing.


*we all know lenses are sharpest in their center, so placing your subject there will ensure optimal sharpness, the image will be sharp but dull and visually unengaging.

[leekil]

*we all know lenses are sharpest in their center, so placing your subject there will ensure optimal sharpness, the image will be sharp but dull and visually unengaging.

I know someone who shoots his subjects in the center, but then crops the image to get both the maximum sharpness and the composition. Seems like a bit of overkill to me.

[beachgardener]

From pin sharp to tack sharp to razor sharp, maybe now scalpel sharp, what next?


The thing is, different images produced for different reasons, some benefit from good sharpness some from not so sharp, just as there is different lenses and sensors and films used to produce images with their own inherent qualities, there is no answer really, just what we want to produce in our images, use the tools to create that.

[Digitalis]

Not to mention an utter waste of resolution.