Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] What's sharp? [was Images: Stormy Weather]

Subject: [OM] What's sharp? [was Images: Stormy Weather]
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 16:42:21 -0700
  On 8/12/2010 4:57 AM, Brian Swale wrote:
> ...
>
> When I see OM images as sharp as these I feel like giving up .....

I think you are misunderstanding, and mis-attributing the source of what you 
see on the screen.

Here's an image , the original of which is fairly sharp, with good DOF, but, 
being from a small sensor compact camera, 
doesn't have the pixel level detail of a DSLR, especially FF. The subject has 
an incredible amount of fine, subtle 
detail. Yet when seen on the web, none of that will be visible. In fact, I 
doubt if one could tell the difference at 
this size if I had duplicated the shot on the 5D.

What IS visible is mid level detail, and the way it is processed and presented 
determines how sharp it looks. 
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/Process/Sharp/IMG_0859.htm>

Look closely, and I think you will find that the amount of clear detail 
increases with each step, not all of which are 
sharpening, and some of which were done at full size, others after downsizing. 
Even step Five, which certainly starts to 
look over processed, does increase visible detail in parts of the image.

I have not forgotten your eloquent and moving post on why you don't have a 
computer with contemporary processor speed, 
amount of memory and image editing software.

Nevertheless, much more of the difference in sharpness you perceive between 
your web size images and these of Joel's is 
attributable to post processing than to differences in camera, lens and 
photographic technique. Joel uses current 
computer equipment and version of PS.  (Funny what people notice. I take the 
sharpness and clarity in 208 a bit for 
granted, lovely as they are, and notice the slight sharpening halo along the 
horizon.)

Or perhaps you are projecting backward from his web images to originals 
imagined to be razor sharp, too. I'm sure they 
are quite nice, but this is an E-410 with kit lens, so you aren't going to cut 
yourself on the originals. :-)

Remember, "sharpness" is not a measurable quality. What we call sharpness is 
some imprecise combination of several 
separately measurable qualities, among which are resolution, overall contrast 
and contrast at edges (Roughly, accutance 
for film and local contrast for digital.)

I suppose there are plenty of folks who have fine tuned their camera settings 
to optimize sharpening and contrast for 
JPEGs out of the camera. I, and many others, shoot RAW, and can choose how to 
set these factors in RAW processing and/or 
post processing.

Beyond that, as Chuck has pointed out many times, , I a few less and Joel in 
this thread, the simple act of downsampling 
an image ALWAYS results in a softer appearing image. Sharpening, resharpening, 
whatever you call it, is necessary to get 
a sharp looking web image.

In fact, it's quite possible to get a very sharp looking web image from a 
slightly soft, full size original. If one of 
your photographic goals is really clear looking web images, stop worrying about 
equipment to capture images; you've 
already got more than enough, and good enough. Maybe even sell some, to start 
the "real computer and software" fund. 
Then invest the time to learn to use it.

A. Sharp Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz