What's new

Is there a thing as too sharp? Female Cardinal example

shefjr

No longer a newbie, moving up!
Joined
Jan 18, 2012
Messages
1,595
Reaction score
418
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I was originally really happy with this photo (except for the small branch that is across her body) when editing raw and pixel peeping. However, when viewing the whole image and not pixel peeping I'm not as impressed.
So my question is, can an image be too sharp and is this image too sharp?


Female Cardinal too sharp? by Shefjr, on Flickr


It doesn't look as bad on here or on flickr.
 
Last edited:
I dont believe there is such a thing as to sharp. The goal of any camera is to give the most detail possible and then let you decide what to do with it.

Now for certain types of photography such a portrait the sharpest lens may not be the best as it exposes skin flaws more and leads to more work in post.

I would say you can never have a lens thats to sharp, but you obviously can have one thats to sof.
 
Yes. An image can be over sharpened with image editing software.
Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition)


Until recently, pretty much all DSLR cameras had an anti-aliasing (AA) filter in front of the image sensor.
Nikon has released a couple of new cameras that use a different approach (D800/D800E).

Anti-aliasing filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Optical anti-aliasing filter
In the case of optical image sampling, as by image sensors in digital cameras, the anti-aliasing filter is also known as an optical lowpass filter or blur filter or AA filter. The mathematics of sampling in two spatial dimensions is similar to the mathematics of time-domain sampling, but the filter implementation technologies are different. The typical implementation in digital cameras is two layers of birefringent material such as lithium niobate, which spreads each optical point into a cluster of four points.[SUP][1][/SUP]
The choice of spot separation for such a filter involves a tradeoff among sharpness, aliasing, and fill factor (the ratio of the active refracting area of a microlens array to the total contiguous area occupied by the array). In a monochrome or three-CCD or Foveon X3 camera, the microlens array alone, if near 100% effective, can provide a significant anti-aliasing effect,[SUP][2][/SUP] while in color filter array (CFA, e.g. Bayer filter) cameras, an additional filter is generally needed to reduce aliasing to an acceptable level.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP]

Anti-aliasing and IR-reject filter from an older digital video camera​
[TABLE="class: plainlinks fmbox fmbox-system, width: 1356"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text, align: center"]This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.
Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
No, it can never be too sharp but it can be oversharpened :)

What exactly did you do when processing the raw ?

And it helps if you leave the exif data intact...

Looks a little dull on my monitor.

Using FastStone Image Viewer I lightened the shadows a tad, pulled down the highlights, added a little brightness and contrast then adjusted the levels a tad...

Also added +2 sharpness :)

8583619120_ac0d0d971c_b_zpsc4235447.jpg



Cheers, Don
 
Thanks Keith! I take it this would be a good book for me to invest in? ;)

No, it can never be too sharp but it can be oversharpened :)

What exactly did you do when processing the raw ?

And it helps if you leave the exif data intact...

Looks a little dull on my monitor.

Believe it or not Don I actually did quite a bit with my raw processing but, after looking at what you did I guess I could have pushed a little further. I guess if I can't get it right in camera I need to work more on proper processing.
If you are unaware of how the below numbers would look prior to edit, the majority of them would be at zero. I'm currently editing with PSE10, FYI.

Female Cardinal EXIF by Shefjr, on Flickr

I'm unsure of how to remove EXIF data. TBH I thought that I had always left it in there. Also I don't have a calibrated monitor so I suppose that could be part of my problem.
I can tell with your edit that it is better just by the background. It is closer to white than mine is. Honestly I'm just reluctant to push to far and make my photos look over done.
Thank you for your insight.
 
Here is my take.... I think your original is still a little underexposed. Also added a touch of light to the eye.... enhancing what was already there. Beak is a little bright on here... should have knocked that down a little.

$dsdsdsdsd.webp
 
Last edited:
Thanks Keith! I take it this would be a good book for me to invest in? ;)

No, it can never be too sharp but it can be oversharpened :)

What exactly did you do when processing the raw ?

And it helps if you leave the exif data intact...

Looks a little dull on my monitor.

Believe it or not Don I actually did quite a bit with my raw processing but, after looking at what you did I guess I could have pushed a little further. I guess if I can't get it right in camera I need to work more on proper processing.
If you are unaware of how the below numbers would look prior to edit, the majority of them would be at zero. I'm currently editing with PSE10, FYI.

Female Cardinal EXIF by Shefjr, on Flickr

I'm unsure of how to remove EXIF data. TBH I thought that I had always left it in there. Also I don't have a calibrated monitor so I suppose that could be part of my problem.
I can tell with your edit that it is better just by the background. It is closer to white than mine is. Honestly I'm just reluctant to push to far and make my photos look over done.
Thank you for your insight.

Not having a calibrated monitor.... you have no way of knowing what WHITE is, unfortunately. It makes things more difficult, because what looks white to you on your monitor, will be gray on a calibrated monitor. If you use the image I posted above, the whites are about 249 across the board if elements will let you sample that.
 
I'm unsure of how to remove EXIF data. TBH I thought that I had always left it in there.

No, I want you to leave it intact :)

Ahhh.... I quit Flickr quite a while ago and I see they now strip the data when you link an image to a off site post but the data is available On Flickr...

Also I don't have a calibrated monitor so I suppose that could be part of my problem.

That does make it more of a challenge :)

Have you considered shooting in Aperture mode instead of Manual ?

Even with +.7 exposure compensation the image looks underexposed. In Aperture mode (f8) you could have bumped your iso for speed and left the exposure compensation @ 0...

So many options and buttons to push, he, he...

Cheers, Don
 
Charlie, to be honest with you I actually could see that my whites were not white. On my monitor my photos have a blue/gray tint to them. Your photo is perfectly white on my monitor. The problem that I am having is that if I get the photo similar to yours for some reason I'm getting CA around the bird. I'm assuming it has to do with elements and unfortunately until I can use CS6 I don't believe there is a way for me to remove the CA. Which leads me to think I may be stuck posting images like this. :grumpy: I'm quickly learning that I really need to get a monitor calibrator and I really now want to get a Mac so that I can run CS6 and LR4 both of which I have still unwrapped in the box.

Don, I knew you wanted me to leave the EXIF intact. lol. I was trying to convey to you that I don't know how to remove the EXIF from the image. I am learning quickly that I need to get a monitor calibrator and not just with my thread but, one of yours as well(foot prints in the snow).
I'm probably gonna get myself in even more trouble with you guys now but, what the heck I'm still learning. I actually use auto ISO so that I can use Manual and set both my shutter speed and aperture to whatever desired look I want(blurred wings/stopped action/differing DOF/etc). I am not quite sure why the image is underexposed, especially when I adjusted the EV to +.7 and I have the max ISO sensitivity set to 1600. I also checked where I spot metered from with the focus point and it encompasses the birds eye and beak area. In either case, buttons and options aside, I have a lot to continue learning.

If you read something above that you think is worth addressing/correcting please feel free to straighten me out.
It's funny I wouldn't have thought I had much to critique until you both reedited my photo. I appreciate you both taking the time to address issues and correct me so that I can improve.:hail:
 
Typically when you save with Web Compression, there is an option to leave Exif intact or remove it. You might check that. Not familiar with PSE, so maybe someone else can answer that question...

Just trying to help! :)
 
If you 'save for web' the EXIF are stripped.
Convert to sRGB and save as jpeg will leave exif intact.

In regards the sharpness.
Magnify this until the bird is almost full screen and and it suddenly starts to look terrific and certainly not oversharpened.

I think the oversharp look is a visual phenomenon due to seeing sharp, relatively contrasty body in the midst of a relatively calm, low-key image.
It looks hyper-real and 'too sharp'.
 
Okay, by your admission you were shooting in manual and with auto iso the camera chose 1/250.

Yet your focal length was 400mm. Tsk, tsk :)

Don't give up on Elements just yet.

Try Enhance > Adjust Lighting > Levels. Click on the eye dropper on the far right and click on the image to set white point.

Or > Enhance > Adjust color > Remove color cast. Same deal with the eye dropper.

Ideally you would adjust the exposure on the raw but until you calibrate your monitor perhaps you could download a color chart with a known white value that you can use as a visual reference ?

By that I mean, place the image somewhere on your screen so you can see it when processing the raw.

Cheers, Don
 
Typically when you save with Web Compression, there is an option to leave Exif intact or remove it. You might check that. Not familiar with PSE, so maybe someone else can answer that question...

Just trying to help! :)

If you 'save for web' the EXIF are stripped.
Convert to sRGB and save as jpeg will leave exif intact.

Charlie and Lew,
My fault here but, just to be clear with you both, I'm okay with keeping the Exif data intact for now. Someday when I win the lotto maybe I'll be concerned with removing it. Right now I like to leave it in so that others can learn from what I did whether it be right or wrong.

In regards the sharpness.
Magnify this until the bird is almost full screen and and it suddenly starts to look terrific and certainly not oversharpened.

I think the oversharp look is a visual phenomenon due to seeing sharp, relatively contrasty body in the midst of a relatively calm, low-key image.
It looks hyper-real and 'too sharp'.

Lew,
I actually did like this image in PSE10 at 100%. It wasn't until I zoomed out to print size in PSE10 that I noticed... something(not even sure how I would describe it). That something is what brought the question to my mind of, can something be over sharpened. It wasn't until I looked at it on flickr that I thought maybe it was just how it was being displayed on PSE10 that was making int look off to me but, by that time I had already opened the can of worms. I'm happy I did bring it up though because I still learned a few important things here.

Okay, by your admission you were shooting in manual and with auto iso the camera chose 1/250.

Yet your focal length was 400mm. Tsk, tsk :)

Don, I'm assuming your throwing this out in jest because of the "Tsk, tsk :) ". Unless there is something I'm missing. I do know that the shutter speed (which I choose) should be at least the same as the focal distance on the lens but, I was using VR 1 which allows for 4 stops, so I assume that I'm all good here. If I'm wrong let me know. I should also say I know it only prevents camera shake and that it doesn't give me 1/4000 shutter speed (but wouldn't that be cool).

Don't give up on Elements just yet.

Try Enhance > Adjust Lighting > Levels. Click on the eye dropper on the far right and click on the image to set white point.

Or > Enhance > Adjust color > Remove color cast. Same deal with the eye dropper.

Ideally you would adjust the exposure on the raw but until you calibrate your monitor perhaps you could download a color chart with a known white value that you can use as a visual reference ?

By that I mean, place the image somewhere on your screen so you can see it when processing the raw.

Cheers, Don

PSE10 actually does have a raw wb eyedropper. I just failed to use it because... well I guess I have a couple reasons why but, now I'm not sure if I was right so I may have to get back to you on that. It's a great idea to compare something that I know is white to whatever I'm editing. I'm thinking I could probably use the photo that Charlie edited as a resource.

In either case, I have learned quite a bit here and I appreciate you all taking the time to help me improve. :hail:

What I took away today,
I need to pay close attention to the colors making sure that my whites are white. <-- That for me is like the horizons in a landscape photograph. I never thought about it until it was pointed out. Hopefully this will be the same thing for me. After all, I did see in my original photo that the background was a blueish gray. I made the choice to save the photo like that without thinking about it (hopefully not again).
I really need to pick up that Mac so that I can learn/run CS6 and LR4 (which are for mac only and sitting on a shelf here still wrapped in their boxes)
 
shefjr, a lot of people go by the rule use 1/focal length or faster for your shutter speed. Your image is sharp so I wouldnt worry. If you are using autoISO you can select a minimum shutter speed for it in the menu, at least i can.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom