Sharper the better? What is wrong with softening?

[Mindy]

Hello, I am trying to understand a few things I was recommended which brings me here. I was told that lighting and contrast is most important. I also was told that the sharper the better. Well what about softening? And what about depth of field?

Thank you.

 

[Peano]

Hello, I am trying to understand a few things I was recommended which brings me here. I was told that lighting and contrast is most important. I also was told that the sharper the better. Well what about softening? And what about depth of field?

Thank you.

You were told? By whom? Someone with the teacher's edition that has all the answers in the back?

Try this: An image is sharp enough or soft enough when you judge it to be sharp enough or soft enough (or contrasty enough or bright enough or this enough or that enough). Your judgment on such things will err sometimes. How will you know? Your judgment will tell you. And when it does, you learn from it and refine your judgment just a notch.

And if anybody tells you anything different, they're as full of it as a Christmas turkey.

 

[dcclark]

Sharp is good if you want things to look, well, sharp. Soft is good if you want things to be soft. Sounds like a tautology, but it's true. Often portraits are done "soft" (except for the eyes) to make things look kinder and nostalgic -- it's a good effect. Landscapes are frequently very clear through a great depth of field, which is also a good effect. You don't want to see your mother's pores, but you do want to see your mountain's trees -- usually. You judge each time.

 

[K8-90]

You don't want to see your mother's pores, but you do want to see your mountain's trees

Ahaha! Agreed.

 

[Mindy]

You were told? By whom? Someone with the teacher's edition that has all the answers in the back?

Try this: An image is sharp enough or soft enough when you judge it to be sharp enough or soft enough (or contrasty enough or bright enough or this enough or that enough). Your judgment on such things will err sometimes. How will you know? Your judgment will tell you. And when it does, you learn from it and refine your judgment just a notch.

And if anybody tells you anything different, they're as full of it as a Christmas turkey.

Why thank you, Peano. I am on this other site for pet birds and asked for some tips on a photo I took of my two birds smooching (yes they posed for that one). But really I've been playing with Paint Shop Pro and have learned what I like.

 

[Mindy]

Sharp is good if you want things to look, well, sharp. Soft is good if you want things to be soft. Sounds like a tautology, but it's true. Often portraits are done "soft" (except for the eyes) to make things look kinder and nostalgic -- it's a good effect. Landscapes are frequently very clear through a great depth of field, which is also a good effect. You don't want to see your mother's pores, but you do want to see your mountain's trees -- usually. You judge each time.

Thanks David! Great advice. Yes this is a portrait, but not of a human so they don't have pores (that I can see). These folks at this other forum like it sharp for whatever reason. I like it a little soft, for this photo anyway. And technically, since softening a photo blurs it to whatever extent, then it isn't sharp.

But I don't know how to make the photo soft and leave out the eyes. I guess I still need to experiment with my software.

 

[dcclark]

Mindy -- get a fast lens (f/1.4, say) and shoot wide open. Then focus very carefully on the eyes, so that they're perfectly clear. That should help a bit, due to the very shallow depth of field -- then you can perhaps tweak the rest in post-processing.

 

[rufus5150]

Sounds like a tautology, but it's true.

Tangent, but... this has to be one of the funniest, self referential things I've read on TPF. Thank you, sir, for the hearty chuckle!

 

[skieur]

Bottom line is that softening is a technique and the important question for any particular photo is: Does this technique contribute to the visual effectiveness of the photo?

If it does, then it has been used properly. If it doesn't and looks like a mistake to the average viewer, then softening should NOT have been used.

skieur

 

[Mindy]

Bottom line is that softening is a technique and the important question for any particular photo is: Does this technique contribute to the visual effectiveness of the photo?

If it does, then it has been used properly. If it doesn't and looks like a mistake to the average viewer, then softening should NOT have been used.

skieur

I may have oversoftened a photo I did the other day. But then going back, I did like the original photo better. So I started over, did the adjustments that were working, did a little touch of softening and a little depth of field, and I did like it better after that.

So yes, I know what you mean. Thank you.

 

[Mindy]

Mindy -- get a fast lens (f/1.4, say) and shoot wide open. Then focus very carefully on the eyes, so that they're perfectly clear. That should help a bit, due to the very shallow depth of field -- then you can perhaps tweak the rest in post-processing.

Yes I understand now! Exactly. Thank you. Now I really do need a new camera!

 

[DRoberts]

There are so many difeent styles and preferences with photography that there is no way to give a general answer to your questions. No matter what you do you will find some that love it and some that hate it. So as stated above the best thing to do is make it to where you like it. The only time I worry about someone elses opinion is if someone hires me to take a specific photo with a specific outcome. Other than that I do what I like, in my style, and will continue to do so....That being said does not imply that i am to good (or stuborn) to accept advice and tips from those who are far more advanced in this field than I am.

 

[Mindy]

There are so many difeent styles and preferences with photography that there is no way to give a general answer to your questions. No matter what you do you will find some that love it and some that hate it. So as stated above the best thing to do is make it to where you like it. The only time I worry about someone elses opinion is if someone hires me to take a specific photo with a specific outcome. Other than that I do what I like, in my style, and will continue to do so....That being said does not imply that i am to good (or stuborn) to accept advice and tips from those who are far more advanced in this field than I am.

Hello there, and thank you for your response. I've been here for a few days now, and I'm learning that the more you can do behind the camera the better. I've even read in one profile where this guy does no post-processing at all! The less the better.

I wrote this post initially because I have been just a point-and-shoot-set-on-auto kind of photographer and was wanting to get tips on post-processing. But now I realize just how much I have loved taking photos and love the ones I have.

HERE IT IS FINALLY... ANOTHER QUESTION
So what I'm getting to is, when is it about what I like, and when is it about the desire for good photography and getting feedback? (Yes, I am working on my common sense here. :roll

Thanks!

 

[rufus5150]

I've even read in one profile where this guy does no post-processing at all!

Which could either indicate someone who has completely mastered the craft and knows the algorithms within his camera completely, or it comes from someone who's lazy. Tough to tell from one quote. And if they're shooting jpeg, the post is simply being done by the camera. If they're converting, chances are likely the raw converter to jpeg is applying some settings (I've met exactly one person who has zeroed out all of their ACR settings and wow do images look terrible!) People that say they do no post are lying, they're just doing less of it or letting something else do it for them.

All digital cameras regardless how well the WB is set, or how well calibrated it might be have to make guesses as to color and such and in many lighting situations, the camera is not 100% correct. Use as little or as much post as it takes to get the image as you want. Which leads me to this...

The less the better.

... being another absolute which shouldn't be, IMNSHO. When I'm not specifically manipulating an image out of the realm of photo and more into digital art, I'm pretty much a color-correct-tonal-adjust-sharpen-done kinda guy. Less is more. Subtle with the use of photoshop. But sometimes getting the image is more pressing and put at risk if you try to get everything right.

We live in a digital age. Use the tools you have. Don't rely on them as a crutch, but use what you have available to get the image you want.

Don't use a bunch of absolutes to paint yourself into a narrow artistic corner.

 

[rufus5150]

when is it about what I like, and when is it about the desire for good photography and getting feedback?

I think this is a question you will have to answer for yourself.