Crisp/ Sharp images

[Lanif]

How do you get crisp/ sharp images? Is that done in post? Or does it have to do with the focusing brackets? I've attached a photo (not mine) of what I consider crisp or sharp. :lmao:http://image.redbull.com/rbx00124/0...2013/experimental/EX13_012388_007415-high.jpg
Press / Ads | Blabac Photo

 

[Braineack]

set the contrast slider to 11.

I dont feel like the linked photo is crisp/sharp; at least not at the size it was presented at.

 

[tirediron]

Sharp images are obtained by focusing and exposing correctly and using good quality equipment.

 

[Gavjenks]

The photo linked was taken with a fisheye which are pretty hard to take NOT sharp photos with, even if you try, since they're so massively wide angle. Especially stopped down to f/8 or more like this probably was.
Also part of what you're seeing is tonemapping / HDR enhancing local detail to look more textures + sharpening in software.

I'm not saying it isn't sharp to begin with, but you probably wouldn't be overly impressed with the sharpness of the original photo without those software tweaks, because there's not much in the image that would sort of PROVE it was sharp, if you get what I'm trying to say. Something like a bird photo often allows a sharper look, even if not actually optically sharper, because the fact that you can see each little fluff of feather crisply feels more impressive than seeing concrete texture.

 

[robbins.photo]

How do you get crisp/ sharp images? Is that done in post? Or does it have to do with the focusing brackets? I've attached a photo (not mine) of what I consider crisp or sharp. :lmao:http://image.redbull.com/rbx00124/0...2013/experimental/EX13_012388_007415-high.jpg
Press / Ads | Blabac Photo

Ok, in general:

Shutter speed. Whenever possible you want a shutter speed that is high enough to eliminate both motion blur and camera shake. To eliminate camera shake you want a shutter speed that is at least equal to the focal length of your lens. So if your shooting at 200 mm, you want your shutter speed to be at 1/200 or higher whenever possible. Features such as IS/OS/VR will reduce the needed shutter speed to eliminate camera shake but this is usually a good rule of thumb. As for motion blur, it will depend on your subject and how fast it is moving as to what shutter speed you'll need to freeze the action. The faster something moves, the higher shutter speed you'll need to freeze the action and eliminate motion blur.

Aperture Settings - Depth of Field. The higher you set your aperture the more depth of field you will acheive, so the sharper various background elements will appear in your photo. However the more you increase your aperture setting the less light your allowing into the lens, and therefore the higher you need to push your ISO to get a decent shutter speed. As a result this is always a trade off, you want to find a good balance of Aperture, Shutter speed and ISO so that you get the desired DOF and a high enough shutter speed without having an ISO that is so high that the picture gets too noisy. A lot of this will also depend on your camera, since various cameras will start getting noiser at higher ISO faster than others.

 

[Derrel]

The second shot looks to me like electronic flash + daylight, which is what is illuminating the skaterboarder as he does his trick. See the deep,dark shadows on the steps? And see the bright highlights on his forehead and face? THAT bright light on the skin is a specular highlight, which is coming from a SMALL electronic flash light source off to the left. The very sharp-edged and DEEP shadows on the steps are the result of a small light source being directly raked across the scene.

A few tricks can make an image have this kind of "pop!". One trick is to use a flash; it provides BRIGHT highlights, often so small that regular people do not "see" them for what they are. Increasing vibrance, and clarity, and upping the saturation a bit can add apparent sharpness. So can moving the black point slider to the right, which makes the blacks and darkest tones deeper, so the degree of contrast between the darks and lights appears more obvious.

"Apparent sharpness" in digitally-adjusted images is often a case of adjusting or "mapping" the tonal values to an over-exaggerated degree, so that the differences between reality and the photo are exaggerated. Our brains tend to interpret very high-contrast,vivid, clear images as being "sharp".

 

[480sparky]

In the first shot, there's at least three light sources, so it's a composite.

The second shot is at least two sources.

 

[Lanif]

Thanks everyone! What I'm getting as the main points are flashes and depth of field and tone mapping in post

 

[Designer]

Thanks everyone! What I'm getting as the main points are flashes and depth of field and tone mapping in post

Be cautious in trying to make it so simple that you end up writing a "formula" for sharpness.

Electronic flash is of short duration, just like a short duration shutter. Short duration minimizes camera shake and subject movement, which contributes to "sharpness'.

Depth of field is the slice of space that is in reasonable focus, and is dependent on the distance, aperture, and focal length of the lens.

Tone mapping is a post-capture editing adjustment that affects the appearance of the finished photograph.

Perhaps doing all these things to every photograph will improve your results, but doing only one of them will also improve your results.

1. lens quality (including every element that is between the sensor and the subject)
2. stop motion (shutter speed, tripod, higher ISO, good technique, flash)
3. editing (when you know what you are doing and why)