Bill Pierce
Well-known
Many photographers turned to digital because of the speed of delivery to a news publication or client. But over the years, as the medium improved, they stuck with it because of the image quality.
Certainly, the exposure range of digital has undergone significant improvement. But, in the last year, the most obvious improvements have been in “sharpness.”
Resolution, acutance, qualities like that, can actually be measured and given a numerical value. But the adjective “sharp” has no numerical values. It’s just a response - “Wow, that’s sharp!!!”
One supposes that “sharp” comes from a blend of technical criteria and photographic skill and craftsmanship. But, no doubt, it’s on the increase. There are now medium format backs that in direct comparison tests with an 8x10 view camera and relatively slow film are thought of as “sharper.” Perhaps more important to many of us, smaller cameras with smaller sensors have improved.
I wondered what the experience of forum members has been, where they see the improvement. At this end, I see the improvement in my pictures from three sources. (1) sensors without anti-aliasing filters... I’ll take occasional moire any day in trade for the fine detail I’m getting. [It will be interesting to see what the new Fuji sensor, with a “more random” distribution of the color pattern, does to eliminate moire. But one can certainly understand how someone who has to turn out a lot of images in a hurry (Fashion Week, the Miss America pageant or a wedding), can’t afford the time to eliminate moire if it shows up and chooses to go with a sensor with an AA filter. Thank goodness I’ve never shot fashion.]
(2) High magnification focus checking with Live View… Long before an element in a picture looks out of focus, it just looks like it’s not so sharp. Where applicable, this highly magnified focusing view can pay off.
(3) High ISO’s that allow high shutter speeds… I think one of the things we became aware of looking at digital images at 100%, was how often the image was softened by camera movement. In many cases, with today’s improved sensors, I’ll opt for a high ISO and high shutter speed before a lower ISO that might give me a little greater tonal range.
Do you find the improvement in “sharpness” in the newer digitals - and, if so, where do you think it is coming from? Perhaps as important, is this increase sometimes of use to you in your photography?
Certainly, the exposure range of digital has undergone significant improvement. But, in the last year, the most obvious improvements have been in “sharpness.”
Resolution, acutance, qualities like that, can actually be measured and given a numerical value. But the adjective “sharp” has no numerical values. It’s just a response - “Wow, that’s sharp!!!”
One supposes that “sharp” comes from a blend of technical criteria and photographic skill and craftsmanship. But, no doubt, it’s on the increase. There are now medium format backs that in direct comparison tests with an 8x10 view camera and relatively slow film are thought of as “sharper.” Perhaps more important to many of us, smaller cameras with smaller sensors have improved.
I wondered what the experience of forum members has been, where they see the improvement. At this end, I see the improvement in my pictures from three sources. (1) sensors without anti-aliasing filters... I’ll take occasional moire any day in trade for the fine detail I’m getting. [It will be interesting to see what the new Fuji sensor, with a “more random” distribution of the color pattern, does to eliminate moire. But one can certainly understand how someone who has to turn out a lot of images in a hurry (Fashion Week, the Miss America pageant or a wedding), can’t afford the time to eliminate moire if it shows up and chooses to go with a sensor with an AA filter. Thank goodness I’ve never shot fashion.]
(2) High magnification focus checking with Live View… Long before an element in a picture looks out of focus, it just looks like it’s not so sharp. Where applicable, this highly magnified focusing view can pay off.
(3) High ISO’s that allow high shutter speeds… I think one of the things we became aware of looking at digital images at 100%, was how often the image was softened by camera movement. In many cases, with today’s improved sensors, I’ll opt for a high ISO and high shutter speed before a lower ISO that might give me a little greater tonal range.
Do you find the improvement in “sharpness” in the newer digitals - and, if so, where do you think it is coming from? Perhaps as important, is this increase sometimes of use to you in your photography?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
No, it is all a matter of perception and skill: many people who were (and still are) not skilled at holding a camera straight, or don't have the acuity to manual-focus (auto-focusing can only do so much, and falls short from reading one's mind's intentions), have perceived that there is an improvement in so-called "sharpness" simply because manufacturers keep on adding things to offset this lack of skill --which can be exacerbated by a certain "goodenough"-ism or "who cares!"-ism in their part.
The perception is that there is an improvement "in the newer digitals" merely because the numbers have grown beyond-exponentially, and as everybody knows, the higher the numbers are, even someone with an RBI of .005 is bound to get a nice shot.
Yes, technology helps a lot, but it's not only "sharpness" in the imaging technology technology, it's the technological crutches that come in the package.
fireblade
Vincenzo.
.......SHARPNESS IS SUCH A BOURGEOIS CONCEPT
Bill Pierce
Well-known
There are variations in the accuracy of systems that allow us to manually focus and the automatic systems that focus for us. There is a reason that folks send their Leicas off to the shop to be null-nulled and have the lens cams reground if necessary. The relatively low magnification view of an SLR’s groundless isn’t that easy to focus, and like all substitute film planes, it doesn’t always replicate the lens to film distance, especially off center. There are good autofocus systems, but like the Leica manual focusing, they often benefit from having the manufacturing tolerances tightened a la the 5D Mark II system of matching a specific lens’s autofocusing to the camera body it is mounted on.
Often it’s not the lack of acuity to manually focus, it’s the limit of the focusing system. (And I can’t imagine one not guiding an autofocus system towards what you want to be in focus rather than relying on some kind of pattern that picked the focus point.) I’m a little reluctant to recommend commercial products on this site, but LensAlign is a good way to evaluate the focusing accuracy of your system. It’s also a very good lesson in manufacturing tolerances and the virtues of Live View.
http://www.whibalhost.com/lensalign/index.html
robbeiflex
Well-known
I haven't used a camera without an AA filter, so no comment. I find that Live View is just too slow a process to be useful on a frequent basis with the exception of completely still subjects.
High ISO, on the other hand, is at the point where it is clean enough for me that often the extra noise is less of a factor than the camera shake and subject movement would have been. When it comes to automation though, especially focus and exposure settings, there is no technology that can substitute the most important part: the one between the two ears of the person behind the camera. Knowing what you want to do and understanding the tools to do it is the key (whether in AF or MF, AE or Manual, etc.) or alternatively if the tools are not there then learn how to work within the constraints you have. I've had enough of bells and whistles and have limited tolerance for any tool (cameras included) that is lacking in its ability to perform its core function.
Cheers,
Rob
High ISO, on the other hand, is at the point where it is clean enough for me that often the extra noise is less of a factor than the camera shake and subject movement would have been. When it comes to automation though, especially focus and exposure settings, there is no technology that can substitute the most important part: the one between the two ears of the person behind the camera. Knowing what you want to do and understanding the tools to do it is the key (whether in AF or MF, AE or Manual, etc.) or alternatively if the tools are not there then learn how to work within the constraints you have. I've had enough of bells and whistles and have limited tolerance for any tool (cameras included) that is lacking in its ability to perform its core function.
Cheers,
Rob
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
When digital improved so dramatically that it got 'too sharp' for my taste, I responded by shooting lenses like the Jupiter-3 and for a short while even fiddled around with hacked lenses etc. With hindsight it seems I chose lenses to distinguish my shooting from the harshness of sharp-and-high-contrast modern DLSR quality.
My current digital camera is a simple D3100 and I use sixties-era Nikkors on it. Sharpness is there but contrast is much lower. As a result I get few comments saying 'that is sharp!'. But when the subject lands on sharpness, I enjoy the puzzled look of those viewing my photos, because it is sharp after all once they pay attention.
My current digital camera is a simple D3100 and I use sixties-era Nikkors on it. Sharpness is there but contrast is much lower. As a result I get few comments saying 'that is sharp!'. But when the subject lands on sharpness, I enjoy the puzzled look of those viewing my photos, because it is sharp after all once they pay attention.
haempe
Well-known
I always wonder, it is really improved sharpness?
Or improved sharpening of the pre-post-production in the camera CPU...
Or improved sharpening of the pre-post-production in the camera CPU...
Bill Pierce
Well-known
When digital improved so dramatically that it got 'too sharp' for my taste, I responded by shooting lenses like the Jupiter-3 and for a short while even fiddled around with hacked lenses etc. With hindsight it seems I chose lenses to distinguish my shooting from the harshness of sharp-and-high-contrast modern DLSR quality.
My current digital camera is a simple D3100 and I use sixties-era Nikkors on it. Sharpness is there but contrast is much lower. As a result I get few comments saying 'that is sharp!'. But when the subject lands on sharpness, I enjoy the puzzled look of those viewing my photos, because it is sharp after all once they pay attention.
While it’s a matter of taste, by my standards a lot of folks “oversharpen” in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. They crank the image up to 100%, make it super sharp at that magnification and never seem to look at the print or computer screen jpeg that they are showing others.
Camera megapixel counts have gotten higher, anti-aliasing filters have gotten weaker (and disappeared in some cases). While most digital images need some sharpening (no sharpening on that glamour portrait of your significant other), I certainly think it’s less than the early cameras demanded. Photokit Sharpener is an excellent add-on program for Photoshop and, at least in its first stages, applies a gentle sharpening. Or, you can just use the sharpening tools embedded in your favorite image processing program, look at the final result, not a computer screen image at 100%, and make the appropriate adjustments that are necessary. That’s right, you may have to use 2 sheets of inkjet paper. But excellence doesn’t come cheap.
Bike Tourist
Well-known
"While it’s a matter of taste, by my standards a lot of folks “oversharpen” in programs like Lightroom and Photoshop. They crank the image up to 100%, make it super sharp at that magnification and never seem to look at the print or computer screen jpeg that they are showing others."
Amen to that reaction to oversharpening. I have the same reaction to oversaturation. Pretty soon photographs, oversharpened to pencil outlines and oversaturated to large expanses of color will look just like cartoons!
To the original question, my recently-purchased X100 has pretty well made the case for sharpness in an APS-C sensor. Nothing further is required by me.
Amen to that reaction to oversharpening. I have the same reaction to oversaturation. Pretty soon photographs, oversharpened to pencil outlines and oversaturated to large expanses of color will look just like cartoons!
To the original question, my recently-purchased X100 has pretty well made the case for sharpness in an APS-C sensor. Nothing further is required by me.
boomguy57
Well-known
I can't remember where I read it, but recently read an article arguing that we are going to look back at the first decade of the 21st century and all consider this to be the decade everyone ruined their photographs with excessive post-processing.
I think that sharpening is something that fits in with that. Too many folks over-sharpen their images, and if you upload them to flickr (and maybe other online photo-sharing sites) they are sharpened again without your consent.
Totally agree about the X100--I sharpen maybe 1 of 20 shots, and even then it's very mild with Nik's sharpening tool.
I think that sharpening is something that fits in with that. Too many folks over-sharpen their images, and if you upload them to flickr (and maybe other online photo-sharing sites) they are sharpened again without your consent.
Totally agree about the X100--I sharpen maybe 1 of 20 shots, and even then it's very mild with Nik's sharpening tool.