Sharp

For me, sharpness can never be over-rated, if a sharp image is what I wish to make.

If a sharp image is not what I wish to make, I feel more comfortable knowing how to make it sharp and then choose a strategy to soften it from there.

Monopods haven't been mentioned, I believe. I find I can get three extra stops with an eyelevel camera and, sometimes, up to five with a waist level finder.

Finally, anti vibration lenses and camera bodies can give an extra three stops, though I have found that the warnings not to use them with tripods are well founded.
 
Asim said:
1. Try to shoot with the sun to the left or right of your subject. This will increase the texture (with shadows) of the subject making your image look sharper.

2. Use a warming filter. This will bring more clarity to bright spots or highlights without darkening the dull areas. This warmth will give the overall image an appearance of more sharpness.

3. Shoot in the morning or later afternoon. The warm light will give a 3D look to your image... making your image look very sharp.

4. Use a shallow depth of field to throw background out of focus. The in focus subject will pop out from the blurry background making it look much sharper than if the whole image were in focus.

5. In portraits, bring the eyes of a subject into critical focus. Since the eyes are what attract us to a photo, if they are in sharp focus, it will give the viewer's mind an impression that the whole image is sharp.

Do all of the above in one photos and you'll have an extremely sharp looking image even if your equipment is not the best.

Asim
Click to expand...

Well covered.
 
Back in the early days, when photography was an adventure, the pictorialists were too busy emulating paintings to worry about sharpness (which most paintings did not have). Later, AA and the f64 group came along and made sharpness a priority.

Today, you can have it any way you like. My feeling is that those who are excessively concerned with sharpness, especially with personal, non-commercial work, are probably gear heads whose concern does not translate into memorable images.
 
This may or may not fit with your "less than the cost of a new camera" stipulation, Bill, but : if you have the option, use the viewfinder.
At least for me, I get much better results when I'm not holding the camera at arms length.
Rob
 
It has already been mentioned, but for handheld 24x36 DSLR shots, the heavier bodies are better to allow extending the low end of possible shutter speeds.
Think an eighth or quarter of a second with a 20-24mm wide lens, or a sixtieth with a [heavy] 135mm lens.
 
Cheap or free things that give sharpness...

Recap of comments above:
- Shutter speed. Steady hands. Breathing. Proper release. How you hold the camera.
- Tripod or monopod. Other camera stabilizers. Cable release. Mirror lock-up. Camera/lens mass adds to steadiness.
- Choice of developer for analog; processing for digital (including sharpening). Resizing in several smaller steps.
- Camera adjustment
- Good focus. Optimal focusing aid/screen.
- Avoid need to crop
- Choice of f-stop (use the sweet spot for your lens)
- Avoid flare. Lens hood. Multi-coated optic and filters.
- Find enough light. Side lighting. Warm lighting or filter.
- Shallow DOF and critical focus on subject. Critical focus on eyes in a portrait.
- VR or IS lens/body
- Proper display (monitor, print materials)

I'll add:
- Choice of film or sensor
- Stitching
- Focus stacking
 
Hard to get sharp photos after a couple glasses of wine. Mistakes are easier to make. My rule, no drinking while making photos, except water!
 
Did a little test this weekend. I thought I was testing lenses, but the more interesting result: Focus accuracy makes a bigger difference than lenses. Maybe bigger than anything else.

I had a good DSLR, and I tried various AF options. Stationary ISO 12233 target, camera on tripod. Read results by eye at 300%, center of image.

A key result with a good lens:
- Phase detection autofocus: A bell curve with lots of variation. Mostly images 1000 to 2000 LW/PH, which is bad for this gear. A few at 2500, better.
- Precise focus (live-view, zoomed in, manual focus): 3000 LW/PH, with NO variation.

This matches a result by Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals: Phase detect AF (faster, of course) has more variation, and you can see the difference in test results. I'll bet my casual manual focusing is worse yet!

Will this show in images? The full range of my results (1000-3000 LW/PH) is the difference between sharp for a 4x6 vs. sharp at 12 x 18.
 
ColSebastianMoran said:
Did a little test this weekend. I thought I was testing lenses, but the more interesting result: Focus accuracy makes a bigger difference than lenses. Maybe bigger than anything else.

I had a good DSLR, and I tried various AF options. Stationary ISO 12233 target, camera on tripod. Read results by eye at 300%, center of image.

A key result with a good lens:
- Phase detection autofocus: A bell curve with lots of variation. Mostly images 1000 to 2000 LW/PH, which is bad for this gear. A few at 2500, better.
- Precise focus (live-view, zoomed in, manual focus): 3000 LW/PH, with NO variation.

This matches a result by Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals: Phase detect AF (faster, of course) has more variation, and you can see the difference in test results. I'll bet my casual manual focusing is worse yet!

Will this show in images? The full range of my results (1000-3000 LW/PH) is the difference between sharp for a 4x6 vs. sharp at 12 x 18.
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting this up. I have always been under the impression that autofocus was more accurate, but that may not actually be true. I think I will have to take a closer look at this.
 
My main point is that accurate focus is important if you want a sharp image.

All about AF would be another topic. My test was in moderate indoor lighting; AF is better in brighter lighting.
 
I have noticed since getting the M9 and especially with a really sharp lens like the 28 2.8 ASPH I need faster shutter speeds. I was interested to read the reviewer of the 50 APO Summicron on Luminous Landscape who had long ago found that sharp pictures hand held requires at least a shutter speed with the denominator three times the focal length, any format, any system, always. I am finding the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom