Be my judges, please

[LaFoto]

Someone on the German photo forum www.fotocommunity.de says about this photo that it lacks in sharpness and contrasts, when it was the relief-giving light angle (good for contrasts, I thought) on these old bricks between the timber and the texture of the materials that fascinated me so. Plus this photo is so sharp in its original as few others of mine are.

See for yourselves and tell me if my eye-sight is going or I already begin to hallucinate?

 

[Funkyflame]

for my mind the contrast is good ...



i took a little more sharpness ... i hope it`s ok for you, that i have attempt ...

 

[LaFoto]

OK - I see that it can be sharper... I agree. It's my old eyes ... :roll: - dang, what a nuisance when old age begins to kick in ...

 

[Funkyflame]

:lmao: :hugs: :hug::

 

[Arch]

yea the sharpness is a little punchier in funkyflames version..... your original wasn't 'out of focus'..... just a little soft.....

The contrast however doesn't need adjusting imo....

 

[PNA]

yea the sharpness is a little punchier in funkyflames version..... your original wasn't 'out of focus'..... just a little soft.....

The contrast however doesn't need adjusting imo....

Agree....exactly what was done to create the sharper effect??
I'm still learning PS and all suggestions and tips would help.

 

[Goldenblaze]

look at the door, you can notice it most there
flames is sharper

 

[Alison]

I think the contrast is great! My eyes must be going too (or I need new glasses!) becuase it looked plenty shart until I saw the edit.

 

[LaFoto]

YOUR eyes cannot be going as yet, you are way too young for that ... but once you have reached my (old) age.........! :shock:

Yes, it did look pretty sharp to me, too, all the time, until I saw Monika's edit.

I will make use of USM (unsharp mask) more often ... seems like I have finally found out how to use it properly without oversharpening - but I had never felt I would even need to use it on this very photo. Alas, I was wrong...

 

[mentos_007]

well.... to be honest it is sharp.. but not as sharp as the edited one

 

[Mohain]

I can't see anything wrong with your photo LaFoto. Funkyflame's version is sharper but I wouldn't say yours necessarily lacked shaprness. I would like to see a good B&W conv of it tho

 

[markc]

I agree that it could use a touch more sharpness, but I think that was a little too much. It can be easy to oversharpen. With digital cameras having sharpening built-in and so many people cranking it up, I think people are getting used to seeing it as normal. But I'm seeing edge artifacts in that, especially in the wood at the top and some of the stone. It looks a bit like white, scruffy hair.

My personaly approach is to do all editing with no shapening (and it turned off in the camera). I save that image as final edit, then I sharpen it and save it full-sized for printing. Then I shrink it for the web, sharpen it for that size, and save that. Each image should be sharpened only once, and after it's been resized, as resampling will affect the sharpness. Even a sharp image can loose a little after being shrunk. Plus now I have the source edit to go back to in case I need a different size for the web or whatever.

 

[John E.]

HI Lafoto

Contrast and sharpness can be a personal preference, although the sharpening did bring out the textures more. The brick and old wood work very well together, good eye for catching that.

 

[PNA]

My personaly approach is to do all editing with no shapening (and it turned off in the camera). I save that image as final edit, then I sharpen it and save it full-sized for printing. Then I shrink it for the web, sharpen it for that size, and save that. Each image should be sharpened only once, and after it's been resized, as resampling will affect the sharpness. Even a sharp image can loose a little after being shrunk. Plus now I have the source edit to go back to in case I need a different size for the web or whatever.

I like your procedure on the sharpness issue. :thumbup: