It's been fantastic to take part in recent monthly photo competitions and I've been impressed by the incredibly high standards. Indeed, the best compliment I can offer is that I wish I'd taken many of the entries myself!
In looking at the pictures, two question frequently comes to my mind:
To what extent are images being 'enhanced' by the use of post capture sharpening and how much sharpening is really needed to yield a good result?
My take on the subject is that I strive to produce images that look as natural as possible. I try to hide the use of flash, and sharpen my images just enough to bring out detail, without any unnatural exaggeration to edges (unsharp-masking) etc. Obviously, I wouldn't have felt prompted to ask the question if I didn't feel that occasionally images are over sharpened (at least to my eyes and taste - clearly there's no hard and fast rule on this and the last thing I want to do is offend anyone!).
I wondered what others felt about this issue?
Best wishes
Malcolm
When is sharp too sharp?
-
Malcolm Farrow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:14 pm
- Location: Suffolk
- Contact:
-
Rogerdodge
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 6:06 pm
- Location: North Devon
Malcolm
Every digital photograph has been 'enhanced' in some way.
After all, the RAW image has to be processed to create an acceptable picture - either automatically, in-camera (if you shoot JPEG), or afterwards in PS or similar if you shoot RAW.
I share your opinion about over sharpening - I have seen a handful of images in the competitions that seem (to me) to be over-sharp. It is very easy to get carried away in PS and create an almost cartoon effect with the sharpening tool.
Some 'point and shoot' digital cameras have really massive levels of sharpening 'built-in' to the JPEG creation to compensate for lack of pixels or poor optics or both.
On a similar matter, I am also fairly convinced that one of the best images in the July competition is a cut & paste job* - a butterfly pasted onto a different background.
It is a beautiful picture, and is also the image I intend voting for!
This leads to the question of just how much modification is acceptable?
Personally I do not use a great deal of PS post shooting, usually just a touch of contrast and some cropping.
But then I got no votes last time...........
Some people do a lot more I know, and create 'better' images as a result.
I have, hanging on my wall at home, a print of a Large Blue I took last year. It looks amazing. However, I (personally) would not enter it in a competition, as the original image had a thick blade of grass across one wing. It's removal took ages in PS, and the result is great, but is it acceptable?
Perhaps, "The picture is the thing" and how the final result is achieved is almost irrelevant. After all, in the old days of film, those who did their own processing would use lots of tricks lke pushing and puling film to create grain or save wrongly exposed shots. We would also dodge and burn to balance exposure levels in a print.
I think it is very much a matter of 'each to their own'
I personally resist lots of processing for some indefensible 'ethical' reason, but I love to look at, and will even vote for, the results of clever PS use.
Roger Harding
(*I do not know for sure, so I shall not name names)
Every digital photograph has been 'enhanced' in some way.
After all, the RAW image has to be processed to create an acceptable picture - either automatically, in-camera (if you shoot JPEG), or afterwards in PS or similar if you shoot RAW.
I share your opinion about over sharpening - I have seen a handful of images in the competitions that seem (to me) to be over-sharp. It is very easy to get carried away in PS and create an almost cartoon effect with the sharpening tool.
Some 'point and shoot' digital cameras have really massive levels of sharpening 'built-in' to the JPEG creation to compensate for lack of pixels or poor optics or both.
On a similar matter, I am also fairly convinced that one of the best images in the July competition is a cut & paste job* - a butterfly pasted onto a different background.
It is a beautiful picture, and is also the image I intend voting for!
This leads to the question of just how much modification is acceptable?
Personally I do not use a great deal of PS post shooting, usually just a touch of contrast and some cropping.
But then I got no votes last time...........
Some people do a lot more I know, and create 'better' images as a result.
I have, hanging on my wall at home, a print of a Large Blue I took last year. It looks amazing. However, I (personally) would not enter it in a competition, as the original image had a thick blade of grass across one wing. It's removal took ages in PS, and the result is great, but is it acceptable?
Perhaps, "The picture is the thing" and how the final result is achieved is almost irrelevant. After all, in the old days of film, those who did their own processing would use lots of tricks lke pushing and puling film to create grain or save wrongly exposed shots. We would also dodge and burn to balance exposure levels in a print.
I think it is very much a matter of 'each to their own'
I personally resist lots of processing for some indefensible 'ethical' reason, but I love to look at, and will even vote for, the results of clever PS use.
Roger Harding
(*I do not know for sure, so I shall not name names)
-
Dave McCormick
- Posts: 2388
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:46 pm
- Location: Co Down, Northern Ireland
- Contact:
I noticed that too with the CRT and LCD. I have both screens a 17inch CRT and 17inch LCD and I saw differences with the pics I took. LCDs show things more clearer and better than on a CRT anyway.
For me, I try and get as natural shots as possible and not use flash as much during day as I can, except in low lights and at night.
I would only sharpen an image in parts that needed a bit of "un blurring" if it was too bad, I'd scrap image.
I would use a relief (redirects the pixels in an angle so if image was slight motion blur to one angle, it would correct this) only when necessary if this needed it because, even though it fixes the problem, it hardens the sharpness of the rest of the picture unless you can select which parts of the pic you wish to fix.
I would only inhance colours slightly. I don't do it unless image looks like its a bit dark or whatever. Still, I don't have the professional kit like some of you, but I still can take "decent" shots with my compact.
For me, I try and get as natural shots as possible and not use flash as much during day as I can, except in low lights and at night.
I would only sharpen an image in parts that needed a bit of "un blurring" if it was too bad, I'd scrap image.
I would use a relief (redirects the pixels in an angle so if image was slight motion blur to one angle, it would correct this) only when necessary if this needed it because, even though it fixes the problem, it hardens the sharpness of the rest of the picture unless you can select which parts of the pic you wish to fix.
I would only inhance colours slightly. I don't do it unless image looks like its a bit dark or whatever. Still, I don't have the professional kit like some of you, but I still can take "decent" shots with my compact.
Cheers all,
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
My Website: My new website: http://daveslepidoptera.com/ - Last Update: 11/10/2011
My Nature videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/DynamixWarePro
Keep in mind that a pocket camera sharpens images automatically. Some sharpen them more than necessary and there's nothing the user can do about it.Dave McCormick wrote:I would only sharpen an image in parts that needed a bit of "un blurring" if it was too bad, I'd scrap image.
On the other hand, DSLRs usually leave the picture way too soft - at least on default settings. Therefore, a basic sharpening is always required. That can be taken too far, though. I sharpen the pictures twice. First in full size to counter the effects of the AA-filter inside the camera and a second time after resizing. The cases for selective sharpening are EXTREMELY rare.
I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that! I use a digital point and shoot and the only post processing I would do (if I ever get a picture that is good enough, and if I get around to downloading from the camera before the end of the competition - 2 big ifs) is cropping and adding a border. But that's just my personal preference. If I were printing an image I would take time to make it just how I wanted it.Rogerdodge wrote:On a similar matter, I am also fairly convinced that one of the best images in the July competition is a cut & paste job* - a butterfly pasted onto a different background.
It is a beautiful picture, and is also the image I intend voting for!
Roger Harding
(*I do not know for sure, so I shall not name names)
Cheers
Bill
-
Malcolm Farrow
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 9:14 pm
- Location: Suffolk
- Contact:
It's really interesting, and thought provoking, to read your replies.
I must admit, I hadn't considered the issue of equipment at all. I guess having a DSLR has spoiled me in that I have complete control (at least in theory!) over the way images are output from the camera. But of course, many compacts make decisions for you, including sharpening, often with an undesirable end result.
I use an LCD screen and again, I hadn't considered that, of course, images look different on every monitor, and especially on a CRT.
The issue of photographic ethics is an area I feel on safer ground with, at least from a personal perspective, although it starts to go beyond the original purpose of my question into what is perhaps an even more interesting area.
In the pre-digital age images were often adjusted to a greater or lesser extent: retouched, dodged and burnt-in, sometimes even allowing history to be re-written! However, although that was happening, viewers usually believed in the 'truth' of what they were seeing in the photograph, even if sometimes mistakenly.
The digital age gives us unprecedented opportunities to control images, and with that control comes, at least for me, a greater responsibility and a need for personal honesty. I was involved in an exhibition of landscape photography last year and the question viewers constantly asked was "how much have these images been enhanced?" and "was the light really that good or have you just done it on the computer?". I came away convinced that there is less belief in the verisimilitude of photographs now than ever before, indeed the initial reaction of many viewers looking at a good picture is scepticism.
So I'm pretty much in agreement with Roger. I'm happy to put back the sharpness lost in the AA filter. I'm happy to crop, especially as with auto-focus its sometimes necessary to position the subject to suit the sensor rather than the composition (though I like to keep the same shape as the original) . I might also tweak the colour a little and fine tune the exposure, but that's it. I certainly wouldn't make composite images, clean away distracting foliage, or anything like that - at least not for something I'd publish. But at the end of the day, where one draws the line in the sand is a personal decision...
Thanks to all for your thoughts.
I must admit, I hadn't considered the issue of equipment at all. I guess having a DSLR has spoiled me in that I have complete control (at least in theory!) over the way images are output from the camera. But of course, many compacts make decisions for you, including sharpening, often with an undesirable end result.
I use an LCD screen and again, I hadn't considered that, of course, images look different on every monitor, and especially on a CRT.
The issue of photographic ethics is an area I feel on safer ground with, at least from a personal perspective, although it starts to go beyond the original purpose of my question into what is perhaps an even more interesting area.
In the pre-digital age images were often adjusted to a greater or lesser extent: retouched, dodged and burnt-in, sometimes even allowing history to be re-written! However, although that was happening, viewers usually believed in the 'truth' of what they were seeing in the photograph, even if sometimes mistakenly.
The digital age gives us unprecedented opportunities to control images, and with that control comes, at least for me, a greater responsibility and a need for personal honesty. I was involved in an exhibition of landscape photography last year and the question viewers constantly asked was "how much have these images been enhanced?" and "was the light really that good or have you just done it on the computer?". I came away convinced that there is less belief in the verisimilitude of photographs now than ever before, indeed the initial reaction of many viewers looking at a good picture is scepticism.
So I'm pretty much in agreement with Roger. I'm happy to put back the sharpness lost in the AA filter. I'm happy to crop, especially as with auto-focus its sometimes necessary to position the subject to suit the sensor rather than the composition (though I like to keep the same shape as the original) . I might also tweak the colour a little and fine tune the exposure, but that's it. I certainly wouldn't make composite images, clean away distracting foliage, or anything like that - at least not for something I'd publish. But at the end of the day, where one draws the line in the sand is a personal decision...
Thanks to all for your thoughts.
In my opinion its only a matter of time before anything goes, and the end justifies the means. To some extent this has already happened in landscape photography. There is a technique called HDR (High Dynamic Range) where one scene is exposed a number of times with a different exposure each time eg eight exposures with 1/3 stop difference and later the eight images are put together in Photoshop using the best exposed part from each image. Similarly they will use filters of many kinds in front of the lens to alter their images before they expose them. On the landscape forum I follow these methods are not condemned but applauded.
When taking macro shots of insects some photographers use a technique called focus stacking that uses multiple exposures with different parts of the insect in focus, thereby increasing the depth of field
Its not new, even in the days before digital images, photographers used every technique available to get good results. eg When I used to print B&W prints on an enlarger I would use dodging and burning to lighten and darken the print.
Cheers
Dave
When taking macro shots of insects some photographers use a technique called focus stacking that uses multiple exposures with different parts of the insect in focus, thereby increasing the depth of field
Its not new, even in the days before digital images, photographers used every technique available to get good results. eg When I used to print B&W prints on an enlarger I would use dodging and burning to lighten and darken the print.
Cheers
Dave