I do not know if I am just being a tad picky, but what is the acceptable margin for sharpness? What level do I need to obtain to get good printed results? To elaborate, do I need to view my shots at 100% zoom to get the true measure of it? That is how I have been judging my pics. Is a slight blurriness acceptable? I photograph a lot of nature, so if the eye and iris of said critter do not come out sharp, I normally disregard it. Dunno if I am beeing too broad on this subject.
Thanks guys. That's what I figured I will do. Just get some 11x14 enlargements of a pic and see how it comes out. I only asked because I had some enlargements made last week that I tweaked a little and they came out really crisp. Figure if I could get away with "less sharp" images.
I agree, print it and see for yourself. Use the 'arm's length test'. Print it at about 8x10 and hold it at about arms length from your eyes. If it looks sharp enough, then you are good to go.
I just noticed that the design firms will whip out their loupes and scan over stuff for sharpness. Wasn't sure to what degree was acceptable. I photograph a lot of birds, so if the fine details do not show in the feathers, I normally reject it. The step back and look works for my wall, but I figure the printing medium may be a tad more demanding. As a designer myself, stray pixels irk me. :mrgreen: Maybe I'm being too picky.
It is a fine line though... images can certainly be too sharp, two sharp makes them look phony and "digitally". I like sharp, crisp pictures, but if something that I know is not sharp in nature is RAZOR sharp or a subject has had obvious sharpening done... well, then it just looks phony.
