[BAKrueger]

Please help me I have become obsessed with pixel peeping, I am deleting nice pictures because on a pixel level 100-200% they are not tack sharp.
How sharp should a picture be right out of camera to be considered sharp ?
such as the photo below,
Sharp?
Out of focus?
Motion blur?
Technique or equipment?
Shot with k-3, Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 ~50% crop processed in LR

Attached Images

 

[Rondec]

To me, the image is in focus, but the problem is that the focus is on the bird's body, not its eye. It's the sort of thing that can happen. Probably not an equipment failure by any means, just a little less contrast there for the auto focus system to grab onto compared to the wing area.

As to whether you should delete an image, it's up to you. If you are printing such an image, you probably wouldn't notice the eye softness at smaller printing sizes, but if it bothers you then delete it and shoot some more.

[BigMackCam]

Your photo above looks great to me (beautiful, actually). I'd definitely consider this a keeper - no question whatsoever.

I don't know the shutter speed you used, but you should aim to keep it fast enough for any slight movement of the bird - movement that may even be imperceptible to you, but could be picked up during the exposure. Also, I'd suggest stopping your lens down a little. The DA*300 has an excellent reputation by any standards, but like most lenses it benefits from stopping down. For optimal sharpness, try f/5.6.

Beyond that, I'd suggest careful use of sharpening in post-processing. You don't want to go overboard, but don't be afraid to bring out the definition. See below your photo with a little gentle sharpening added (I use darktable for post-processing, but the same technique is similar in most software).

As for pixel-peeping, I'd recommend you assess your photos at no more than 50% reproduction most of the time. That's what I do. If it looks good on my 24" monitor at 50% reproduction, it's a keeper. I will go to 100% and occasionally higher if I'm cloning or healing, reducing colour noise, and sharpening the raw before export to JPEG. On the subject of sharpening, I add just enough to bring slightly better definition at 100% reproduction - not to make it look ultra-sharp. When I then drop back to 50% or 25%, things usually look sharp enough.

[biz-engineer]

The primary reason for an image to be kept is to have interesting visual content, then have decent sharpness for printing. An image can be 100% sharp in focus, but meaningless for the viewer. I don't assess sharpness at 100%, I use x4 as default review zoom (50%) in cameras and if blurred at x4 then I don't lock the image. I don't delete images (too slow), I lock images that I want to keep (usually not more than about 50 shots per outing), and I delete complete folders the camera will not delete locked images.

[BAKrueger]

Thank You everyone !!!!!!!!!!!


Brian

[kiwi_jono]

I would keep the image myself as its an interesting composition and key parts are actually in focus.

But at the same time I feel this is my time to come out and say "My name is Jonathan, and I'm a serial pixel peeper".

[Kerrowdown]

Pixel Peeping

Most photographers are over critical when it comes to this sort of thing...

When the print hanging is hanging on the wall with folk looking at it, all of course at the optimal viewing distance (using whichever version of calculation you want to use for that... as there seems to be many)... does the image still look OK?

Most non photographic folk (often clients too) are more concerned about the content, colour and overall feel of the image rather than the edge to edge, corner to corner sharpness. You've only got look at some of the images of the famous photographers around, both past and present to confirm what I've just said.

IMHO, if your not making a living from your photography, then make sure that photography is enjoyable, cos that's what free time and hobbies are supposed to be and not getting too wrapped around the axles with all this overly technical malarky.

[sutherland]

I pixel peep like crazy, but it's not on every image, just on ones where I know:
- I shot at a higher ISO
- I used a lower shutter speed (at or lower than equiv. focal length) to lower ISO
- Photographed a subject from a significant distance or over a body of water (Heat Refraction)

The image you have is sharp, but the focus is on the body. It would be good to know the settings you used:
- ISO
- Shutter
- Aperture
- Focus Mode

[pschlute]

because on a pixel level 100-200% they are not tack sharp

You have had good advice, i would add one thing. Do not look at your image at higher than 100% otherwise it becomes pixelated.

[StiffLegged]

Assessing an image for sharpness at 200% is pointless. Otherwise, why not at 400%, or 800%? You wouldn't keep a thing!

[Sluggo]

Sometimes what I'll do if the focal plane is just a bit off, is use an image editor to select/feather the areas that need help (like face or even just eyes of a subject) and gently sharpen within the selection only, taking a little time to experiment with radius/intensity for the most natural look. That avoids oversharpening or adding noise to the rest of the picture.

[photoptimist]

Please help me I have become obsessed with pixel peeping, I am deleting nice pictures because on a pixel level 100-200% they are not tack sharp.
How sharp should a picture be right out of camera to be considered sharp ?
such as the photo below,
Sharp?
Out of focus?
Motion blur?
Technique or equipment?
Shot with k-3, Pentax DA* 300mm f/4 ~50% crop processed in LR

There's at least one more major cause for non-sharpness: Subject matter!

Photos of twitchy little birds in dark places at high magnification can be impossible to get sharp across the entire body. For such subjects, the choice is between unsharp photos or no photos.


P.S. It's a personal choice, but why delete an image? The cost to keep it is literally less than a penny. You might realize some day that pixel-peeping is leading you astray and then wish you'd kept all those great but "unsharp" images.

[Take-5-JB]

I would pay attention to the aesthetics first and sharpness second. That is a fine shot of a non-staged subject. I would keep it all day, every day. I started with 35mm film in 1977. The pursuit of ultimate sharpness is a plague of modern photography. Perfect sharpness versus feeling and conveying a perception can be like a saltine cracker versus an oatmeal raisin cookie with chocolate chips and pecans. I am taking the cookie!

I just finished a week long juried exhibition where the first three place images were: an egret with tack sharp eye, bill, and plumage in mouth with a relative layer away with less sharpness and a featureless background with a size of about 48x60 inches (h x w); a black and white image of a gathering of birds with about 10% in reasonable focus drifting to an etherial lack of focus and significant blurring of the background at the edges; and an image of a person walking in wooded path that opened up some in the distance, where none of the image was in focus to the extent that you could not determine more than the human form and blended forest. Art versus sterility.

The Photographic Society of America instructs exhibition judges to give as much or more weight to the feeling and story of the image as the mechanical perfection of the image.

JB

[stevebrot]

Please help me I have become obsessed with pixel peeping, I am deleting nice pictures because on a pixel level 100-200% they are not tack sharp.

Eeek! 200% will never appear as sharp as 100% and the sharpness at 100% depends highly on the display dot-pitch and viewing distance!

How sharp should a picture be right out of camera to be considered sharp ?

How close to the final print or display image do you plan on standing?



Steve

[MaineNative]

I think this is a great shot. I think the bird is plenty sharp enough. My one comment is that some of the white highlighted branches are distracting to me. I usually work in Photoshop and I would probably blur or darken the white branches a little in post processing. (Kind of like the limbs in the upper left corner.)