decrease in sharpness?

bwlergh · Jul 17, 2009

Your pictures seem fine, you need to check your aperture for depth of field and also make sure that when focusing, what you want to be sharp(est) is the point of focus.

Moglex · Jul 17, 2009

JerryPH said:
The Pact does not prevent people from enjoying a little levety. I don't recall seeing a line in it that said "thou shalt not point it out that a poster needs to lighten up".

Well, where does it end?

It also doesn't specifically mention anything about not calling someone a smug git!

When someone comes and asks a serious question about what they see as a serious problem they don't expect half the responses to be taking the p (admittedly not with any malicious intent).

One or two light hearted comments might be OK but when everyone jumps on the bandwagon it does get a bit tired.

Anyway, as one of those who tried to be funny at OP's expense, I apologise.

JerryPH · Jul 17, 2009

True, name calling is wrong no matter what. I feel no need to apologize, I do not thnk I acted improperly anywhere in this thread.

Taken in the context of the original photos by the OP, though they may consider it serious, in the end, it is likely nothing more than a 90% chance of user error or perception, as that is where the odds are.

The bottom line is that one cannot realistically compare an obviously well post processed shot of a car from a distance to a less well post processed shot of a flower at a much closer range and then say something like sharpness is decreasing and ask for an answer why.

How could anyone here without doubt hand over the one single correct answer without guessing? They cannot, there are just too many unknown factors starting with the user to hardware and software.

Josh66 · Jul 17, 2009

JerryPH said:
The bottom line is that one cannot realistically compare an obviously well post processed shot of a car from a distance to a less well post processed shot of a flower at a much closer range and then say something like sharpness is decreasing and ask for an answer why.

Yes. That is why I made the joke to begin with.

The pictures were so far removed from each other that they were worthless as a sharpness comparison. I'm not saying that either one of them was bad, just that they are not similar enough for this comparison.

I really don't see what the big deal is.

SrBiscuit · Jul 17, 2009

honestly.
i cant believe that the little jest in this thread caused such heartache.
thicker skins people. it makes for more fun.

+1 to jerry and o|||||||o

Jim Benton · Jul 17, 2009

Honestly,

I can't believe the sanctimonious cant here. People come up with a rather self righteous list of guidelines to try and make the forums a better place, put it in their sigs so that people can SEE how righteous they are and then when they upset someone by making a series of lame jokes in response to a serious request for help start blaming that person when (after the fifth 'joke') he ceases to see the funny side. One joke: funny - five jokes: juvenille.

Only one poster had the decency to apologise and he isn't a pact subscriber.

Tell you what, guys, you just keep on like that but don't have the gaul to complain about how 'this place is not like it was'. You're the problem, not the solution.

Josh66 · Jul 17, 2009

Jim Benton said:
Only one poster had the decency to apologise and he isn't a pact subscriber.

Some people may not feel that they have done anything wrong.

Jim Benton · Jul 17, 2009

O|||||||O said:
Some people may not feel that they have done anything wrong.

I absolutely agree with you. And that's the sad thing. They really don't see what they've done wrong.

Rather like a group of naughty little boys who don't understand that they've gone too far.

tron · Jul 17, 2009

oh well i dont really care, i think its best if we just drop the subject altogether and get to the question at hand. but before we do yes my first post did include 2 very different pictures, thats why after it was pointed out i tried to give a detailed explanation at the bottom of the first picture.

anyways icassell made a good point about the jpeg/raw thing. im thinking i might just need to learn a bit more about sharpening. i usually shoot in jpeg fine though :/

the poster who said it might be about perceived contrast had another good point. i think he (or she, forgive me if im wrong) may be right. for instance i tried taking another pic yesterday (in raw) and tried sharpening it in adobe camera raw and i think it looks a bit better.

i think now what i am asking is, what is the best way to sharpen a picture? the slider in adobe camera raw? unsharp mask, smart sharpen, high pass filters, etc?

heres the picture i was talking about above.

again thanks a ton for the replies

Josh66 · Jul 17, 2009

tron said:
the poster who said it might be about perceived contrast had another good point. i think he (or she, forgive me if im wrong) may be right.

He. Garbz.

tron said:
i think now what i am asking is, what is the best way to sharpen a picture? the slider in adobe camera raw? unsharp mask, smart sharpen, high pass filters, etc?

heres the picture i was talking about above.

This one looks plenty sharp to me.

Best way to sharpen? Personally, I use Lightroom, so I just use the slider there.

tron · Jul 17, 2009

thanks for the tip, ive been meaning to try lightroom forever but never got around to it so im still using cs2. in case anyone else has a problem similar to mine, heres the tutorial i used for sharpening:

Benjamin Kanarek Blog » Add Dimension to Your Flat Photos. One Post Production Technique…

i agree it looks pretty sharp and im pretty happy with it, i was just wondering if you guys had any other methods you prefer

Josh66 · Jul 17, 2009

...You can download a free 30 trial from Adobe.

CS2 should be more than capable though...

Garbz · Jul 17, 2009

Best way to sharpen? None. The algorithms work differently. High-pass gives you unparalleled control over the sharpening, but is also not an easy one to get right quickly (and by right I mean perfect). Unsharp mask is good in that it gives you a great deal of control. Lightroom uses an unsharp mask filter.