Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-30-2016, 12:51 PM - 2 Likes   #16
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,238
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
The images were perfect. They were beyond "sterile" (a word that gets thrown around quite a bit in this subject) - they were cutting my eyes somehow. In short I REALLY did not enjoy any of it....which was sad because overall his attn to light and composition were for the most part excellent, very much so, but I couldn't stand it. It was too perfect - ultra high-contrast - too sharp - un-viewable for me personally.
+1 I get the same feeling when viewing most digitally produced images, especially the HDR ones. I'll take the imperfections of film produced images any day.

As for lens sharpness, it just like horsepower in a car. Not needed everyday, but may come in handy sometimes. All depends on what you are shooting, for some macro work sharpness is a must, for other things not so much. However I also do soft macro flower images, which sometimes are even more pleasing than sharp ones.

Phil.

07-03-2016, 11:27 PM - 1 Like   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 79
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
+1 I get the same feeling when viewing most digitally produced images, especially the HDR ones. I'll take the imperfections of film produced images any day.

As for lens sharpness, it just like horsepower in a car. Not needed everyday, but may come in handy sometimes. All depends on what you are shooting, for some macro work sharpness is a must, for other things not so much. However I also do soft macro flower images, which sometimes are even more pleasing than sharp ones.

Phil.
I have the same feeling regarding un-natural sharpness, also on TV / motion picture production these days. I am short-sighted and wear glasses but not even with my glasses on, the real world looks that sharp like so many photos, films, TV shows. It's artificially blown contrast to me. Some newsreaders here on german TV, you'd wish they'd never invented HD TV. You see every pore and fold of the skin

However, my photos could and should be sharper but that's my shaky hands and not the optics.
07-06-2016, 04:02 PM - 2 Likes   #18
Pentaxian
Swift1's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Oregon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,937
I will likely get some strong disagreement on this but here goes...

If an image really requires sharpness above all else to make it work, it probably isn't worth taking in this first place.
Of the many factors that make an image interesting, sharpness (IMO) is low on the list.
That being said, I too am guilty of wanting sharper lenses, but if I am truly honest with my photos, the cause of failed images is pretty much never because it's unsharp.
07-07-2016, 04:05 AM - 1 Like   #19
Senior Member
Fire Angel's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
I think sharpness is definitely what makes some images, but usually in such cases its because there's a contrast between in focus and out of focus areas. To dismiss sharpness as unimportant is as wrong as making it the one most important factor that must be there. It should have its place, not be something to be worshipped, and not something to be dismissed. What makes a good or a great photo is as varied as the people who take them.

07-07-2016, 06:16 AM - 3 Likes   #20
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,914
There is one really sharp image ingrained in my mind. The image shown me by the guy who sold me my camera, while trying to sell me a printer. IN the various galleries etc. I go through an I see at least 5 to 6 different shows a year, I really can't think of an image I values for it's sharpness. Of the images I've seen on the site, one of pinhole cam's stands out as an image that really took advantage of K-1 pixel shift, DR and sharpness effectively. The skill to take an image that really uses the available sharpness is sorely lacking in most of the K-1 images I've seen. They probably had great resolution, but no one cared because it just wasn't worth the effort to expand the picture to the size where the resolution was meaningful.

I'm only going to go through the effort of seeing the effects of 36MP if I really, really like the picture. Be it super large print or pixel peeping part of the image. But you have to understand, pixel peeping destroys the overall characteristics involved in composition and framing, and is not useful for artistic evaluation. It's simply impossible to judge the level of appreciation you have for a print while pixel peeping.

the K-3 produces 2700 lw/ph
the K-1 produces 3400 lwph.

On a 20x30 inch print you can have a distinct line every .0074 inches with a K-3
On a 20x30 inch print you can have a distinct line every .0059 inches with a K-1

The difference is .0015.
So in essence people are telling me they can see a difference of 1.5 thousandths of an inch.
Even if you go to 40x60 the difference for each line is only 3 thousandths...

I really need to see some research showing there is a difference in viewer appreciation. And there are a couple of points there. There is no established correlation between high resolution and viewer appreciation, at any level.

There is definitely no set of established baselines to suggest at what level 50% of the population find a print has acceptable resolution, or at what level 100% do. This is all mind messing speculation as to the exact effect of high resolution.

Personally, I think many are just happy if they have some reason for thinking their image is really good at something. They don't really care if it's image appeal or not, and preferably it should be something they can buy. That's a lot easier than getting up in the morning and schlepping your equipment over hill and dale to catch a sunrise or sunset from your favourite location, or a a few images with a low light source and golden light. Hell no, I don't want to do that. I'll just buy a K-1.

The question of the day for me is why are so many who have never exploited 24 MP, moving to 36 MP?

I suspect the answer could be grounds for someone's dissertation. And that very little of it has to do with appreciation of the images taken, and more to do with the belief, that taken with that high res camera, that particular image, is better than the same image taken with a lessor camera. It's like religion. People seem to eat that stuff up.

It's been shown many times, if people believe something, it doesn't matter much if it's true. It's the placebo effect expressing itself in photography.

Make yourself a better photographer, buy ________ <insert the latest greatest thing here>. That's not info, that's sales hype.

Last edited by normhead; 07-11-2016 at 05:35 AM.
07-07-2016, 09:02 AM   #21
Senior Member
Johnny Rod's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 121
Good thread. Very interesting to see the results of the "find the prime", I'll have to peruse the images a bit more, as I haven't shot with so many lenses to know their differences. I think FWIW the uber-sharpness that besets Flickr etc. is side by side with the strange flatness of colours and so on - a lack of shading, like when a red brick house has the bricks painted over in one shade of red, it looks unnatural.
07-10-2016, 08:25 PM - 1 Like   #22
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
I did not take this picture, but in light of sharpness talk, can anyone guess the camera and lens involved here, and how sharpness figures into it?
07-11-2016, 05:42 AM   #23
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,914
Given the roughness of the bokeh and the width of DoF and apparently closeness to the subject... my guess would be something small format, a wide angle lens, probably less smaller APS_c. Much of the skin detail is obscured but the hair detail is adequately captured and lens a bit of sharpness to an otherwise soft image.

So my guess would be small format , very close to the subject. to try and achieve some subject isolation. But I could be wrong. I don't see enough of this kind of images to make any kind of authoritavie guess.

Given the austere look on her face, a little more sharpness would be better, as would a more blurred background, at least that would be my stylistic interpretation. Definitely a picture that could benefit from larger format, wider f-stop.


Last edited by normhead; 07-11-2016 at 05:48 AM.
07-11-2016, 07:04 AM   #24
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,987
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
I did not take this picture, but in light of sharpness talk, can anyone guess the camera and lens involved here, and how sharpness figures into it?
Judging by the dress, I'd guess this was taken in the 50's. Judging from the OoF areas and grain, I'd guess a 35mm format camera from around that time. From the way the blues and greens are rendered here, I'd guess an older emulsion as well, probably (going on a limb) a Kodak chrome. In terms of sharpness... It isn't particularly sharp whatsoever, but it is in fact a very interesting photo. It is sharp enough to draw focus to the rose, which is the area in focus and "sharp" (the only area really except some strands of hair on the far side of her head on the same plane as the rose)... the direction her eyes are looking also. The background is blurred but completely visible but not gone to total defocus. She is slightly oof and the rose is "sharp". That's how it plays for me personally. It definitely tells a story or at least raises questions. It works. A sharper lens, or image in general would not have helped this photo be "better" and in fact may have made it less interesting. But that's all subjective.
07-11-2016, 07:24 AM - 1 Like   #25
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,914
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
Judging by the dress, I'd guess this was taken in the 50's. Judging from the OoF areas and grain, I'd guess a 35mm format camera from around that time. From the way the blues and greens are rendered here, I'd guess an older emulsion as well, probably (going on a limb) a Kodak chrome. In terms of sharpness... It isn't particularly sharp whatsoever, but it is in fact a very interesting photo. It is sharp enough to draw focus to the rose, which is the area in focus and "sharp" (the only area really except some strands of hair on the far side of her head on the same plane as the rose)... the direction her eyes are looking also. The background is blurred but completely visible but not gone to total defocus. She is slightly oof and the rose is "sharp". That's how it plays for me personally. It definitely tells a story or at least raises questions. It works. A sharper lens, or image in general would not have helped this photo be "better" and in fact may have made it less interesting. But that's all subjective.
Hey but what we're going here is a series of opinions I think... the amazing thing about this stuff, is the variety of opinions, once you realize, not everyone has the same opinion and how different they can be, you start to understand that however you shoot, there is an audience. Different people look for different things, and don't value somethings as much as othersr. One person's perfection, is another person's bored yawn.

The thing with photography is , we aren't trying to achieve consensus. Everyone has a unique way of seeing the world. No viewpoint is more valuable than others.

I tend to favour more controlled back grounds. I dislike the clutter of images like the above. And trying to control it buy blurring a messy background too often costs one the DOF necessary to keep the subject in focus.

More the style I'd go for... camera stopped down for nice wide DoF, and a backdrop to achieve subject isolation rather than naoorw DoF induced background blur.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEV1murINXaFgASw1XNyoA;...vedon&fr=aaplw

Last edited by normhead; 07-11-2016 at 06:48 PM.
07-11-2016, 07:43 AM - 2 Likes   #26
Site Supporter
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,290
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
. It works. A sharper lens, or image in general would not have helped this photo be "better" and in fact may have made it less interesting. But that's all subjective.
I agree that extra sharpness would not really add to the impact of the picture. I think there is just enough blur to make the subject pop. You are close in your judgement of equipment. This was taken in 1961 with a 35mm Practica IV and four element CZJ 50mm / f2.8
Just a snapshot of my sister in the garden, taken by my father. It was Kodachrome 10. Humble equipment by standards of today, but still quite capable for what it was designed for. I do think we are overly obsessed with technology in picture taking.
07-11-2016, 07:47 AM   #27
Pentaxian
wizofoz's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melbourne, Outer east.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,654
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
how sharpness figures into it
A young Pauline Hanson? And if I'm right sharpness is only ironic.
07-11-2016, 07:51 AM   #28
Site Supporter
chickentender's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,987
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Hey but what we're going here is a series of opinions I think... the amazing thing about this stuff, is the variety of opinions, once you realize, not everyone has the same opinion and how different they can be, you start to understand that however you shoot, there is an audience. Different people look for different things, and don't value somethings as much as ever. One person's perfection, is another person's bored yawn.

The thing with photography is , we aren't trying to achieve consensus. Everyone has a unique way of seeing the world. No viewpoint is more valuable than others.

I tend to favour more controlled back grounds. I dislike the clutter of images like the above. And trying to control it buy blurring a messy background too often costs one the DOF necessary to keep the subject in focus.

More the style I'd go for... camera stopped down for nice wide DoF, and a backdrop to achieve subject isolation rather than naoorw DoF induced background blur.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=A0LEV1murINXaFgASw1XNyoA;...vedon&fr=aaplw
My guesses and thoughts were in no way contrary to yours, at least to me while I typed them.

This is truly a much more "environmental" portrait than traditional. And, yeah, as you mention - all the shots under the sun -- even the ubersharpness, hyper-realistic 24k ones -- have an audience. My only impetus for starting this thread was to get a convo going, and hopefully get the ball rolling on why it is exactly that so many other threads in the forum can begin to feel beyond tedious to many (myself included) out there.

I don't discount entirely the quest for a sharper image or the tools to achieve it... its just that at many points along the way, in the discussion of all of that, something is lost (as has been expressed here already much better than I can)... I'm hoping this thread can find it.. Not a be all end all... just a light in the dark.

Personally I think it's interesting how popular (hugely so) the entire "Lomography" thing has become, especially even with younger shooters. It is, as near as I can tell, the absolute antithesis to the Cult of Sharpness... almost a reaction against it. Lomo isn't really my thing - I enjoy a weird, arty image now and again, and I have taken plenty but it's not my forte, viewing or taking. I do understand the appeal of it though, and it seems to be the film punk to the digital establishment! Two extremes.

---------- Post added 07-11-16 at 07:56 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
I agree that extra sharpness would not really add to the impact of the picture. I think there is just enough blur to make the subject pop. You are close in your judgement of equipment. This was taken in 1961 with a 35mm Practica IV and four element CZJ 50mm / f2.8
Just a snapshot of my sister in the garden, taken by my father. It was Kodachrome 10. Humble equipment by standards of today, but still quite capable for what it was designed for. I do think we are overly obsessed with technology in picture taking.
Oh wow! I was pretty close. I agree we've become obsessed with the technology, often beyond the point of the technology so that it become the point. Much of that is market/industry driven and it seems to be a beast feeding on its own tail.

"The paradox of choice." This has been written and talked about quite a bit by several authors and speakers, but in my head the idea speaks volumes into the quest for gear and the search for sharpness... talking about and discussing, indeed obsessing about it... and not taking any real photos...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/your-money/27shortcuts.html
07-11-2016, 10:18 PM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 79
QuoteOriginally posted by chickentender Quote
Personally I think it's interesting how popular (hugely so) the entire "Lomography" thing has become, especially even with younger shooters. It is, as near as I can tell, the absolute antithesis to the Cult of Sharpness... almost a reaction against it. Lomo isn't really my thing - I enjoy a weird, arty image now and again, and I have taken plenty but it's not my forte, viewing or taking. I do understand the appeal of it though, and it seems to be the film punk to the digital establishment! Two extremes.
I think this whole Lomo-thing is hipster-driven. I would add hipster-driven rubbish but I dont want to offend anybody. The net is flooded with that stuff so it's quite uninteresting to me. To see that kind of picture now and then with a real intention - great. Wrong development can look interesting. But it's used in an almost decadent way. The same for me with übersharpness (yes, I have an ü on my keyboard ).

I dont think my pictures are anything else than snapshots and the net is flooded with that too. I try to restrict myself to pictures I really think are worth the upload. However, there are gazillions like me, most take better pictures, manymanymany are cracks in post-production and manymany are devoted to the god of sharpness (or Lomo or B&W or whatever).

To quote The Police: "too much information is running through my brain, too much information is driving me insane." Too much of everything. In Flickr groups, I scroll through the first and second page of pictures of a group or two, and then it is already boring. I scroll through some albums of some photographers, its the same. The net in some sense is democracy, everybody can add but its also like fast food. The first bite is yummy, the rest is boring. To find a really good burger, you'll have to walk a mile... BTW, I dont exclude my own pictures of being mostly boring. However, I try to not show them (maybe failing, I dont know).

The difference is if you are aware of what you do and where it sorts in. Maybe lots of übersharpeners (or lomoists etc.) dont reflect that way. Just upload and collect followers and hailing the statistics.

PS: just to clarify this: I except this whole forum because the pictures shown here are outstanding.

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-12-2016 at 12:19 AM. Reason: Removed vulgarity
07-12-2016, 07:48 AM   #30
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,374
QuoteOriginally posted by yucafrita Quote
I think this whole Lomo-thing is hipster-driven. I would add hipster-driven rubbish but I dont want to offend anybody. The net is flooded with that stuff so it's quite uninteresting to me. To see that kind of picture now and then with a real intention - great. Wrong development can look interesting. But it's used in an almost decadent way. The same for me with übersharpness (yes, I have an ü on my keyboard ).

I dont think my pictures are anything else than snapshots and the net is flooded with that too. I try to restrict myself to pictures I really think are worth the upload. However, there are gazillions like me, most take better pictures, manymanymany are cracks in post-production and manymany are devoted to the god of sharpness (or Lomo or B&W or whatever).

To quote The Police: "too much information is running through my brain, too much information is driving me insane." Too much of everything. In Flickr groups, I scroll through the first and second page of pictures of a group or two, and then it is already boring. I scroll through some albums of some photographers, its the same. The net in some sense is democracy, everybody can add but its also like fast food. The first bite is yummy, the rest is boring. To find a really good burger, you'll have to walk a mile... BTW, I dont exclude my own pictures of being mostly boring. However, I try to not show them (maybe failing, I dont know).

The difference is if you are aware of what you do and where it sorts in. Maybe lots of übersharpeners (or lomoists etc.) dont reflect that way. Just upload and collect followers and hailing the statistics.

PS: just to clarify this: I except this whole forum because the pictures shown here are outstanding.
Hipster driven rubbish is the right description.

[OFF TOPIC]
I also have an umlaut key on my keyboard, so über is not difficult, nor is any other text markings. The keyboard I use was purchased from Dell; Canadian Multilingual Standard keyboard. I can highly recommend it for anyone on the West side of the Atlantic who needs ¨and ~ or ñ or any of the other accents. The French side of my extended family (all the in and outlaws) are mostly monolingual, so the é è ê à â ç and ô are necessary in postings. The keyboard is perfect for my laptop: it's one of those radio things that uses no cord. [/OFF TOPIC]
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
audience, beacon, bit, cult, discussion, dof, equipment, eyes, film, image, isle, lens, lighthouse a beacon, picture, post, sharpness, site, slr, subject, technology, thread, title
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Short test of the night capabilities of the K-1 on Heise RKKS08 Pentax K-1 6 05-27-2016 01:21 AM
Cityscape The Beacon of Suburbia Spodeworld Post Your Photos! 6 01-02-2015 07:03 AM
Cityscape Kyiv. The twilight. View of the Metro bridge and the left Bank of the Dnieper Konstanta Post Your Photos! 2 12-05-2014 06:29 AM
Landscape The Shores of Lake Superior johnny9fingers Post Your Photos! 11 01-23-2011 09:49 AM
The mists of Maine- long exposures of the ocean on a rocky beach chemrat Post Your Photos! 14 08-17-2009 04:05 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:29 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top