Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,084

    Default True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Excerpt:

    True detail vs. fake sharpness
    13th December 2007, 12:41 pm

    It’s the same on every web forum - if you post a digital picture which would be acceptable to a photo library or professional buyer, half a dozen grumpy one-liners will come out saying ‘That don’t look sharp to me’ or ‘there must be something wrong with your XXX’ (fill in D300, A700, E-3, D3, 40D as required). Then someone posts a hugely messed up image and people say ‘Wow! What sharpness!’…


    What is happening here? Why do some people know how to see fine detail rendering in an unprocessed image, while others do not see something as sharp until you can count the jaggies on every hair and see a halo round every white to black edge transition? There are several factors. One may simply be the type of screen used to view the image. We use Apple Mac Cinema screens throughout - two 24 inch, three 20 inch. They have the same technology as the LG branded screens used by Alamy to check image submissions. They are very neutral, adding no sharpening of their own, and very crisp with no anti-aliasing of images. The Mac system permits anti-aliasing of text and offers four levels of softening, which you can pick to suit various types of LCD and CRT screen. But some graphics cards also anti-alias images, and some screens - especially CRT monitors - are inherently very soft. When we used CRT monitors, we always specified Mitsubishi Diamondtron because they gave the most accurate pixel for pixel view of digital images.

    Read the rest of the article...

    Which is sharper to you?



    or

    Last edited by theveed; 6th January 2008 at 12:43 AM.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,218

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    The second one.
    But it feels "fake"...
    Just me...

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,084

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    read the article for the reason

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Sharpness is subjective to begin with......

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,084

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    That's what the article is pointing out and how the loss of resolution and detail is generally considered as "sharp" for non-print users

  6. #6

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    now this is weird, i like everything except for the eyeball area (white and blue) for the first

    and i only like the eyeball area for the second - you can't deny that it looks sharper. edges are more defined for the details in the er, iris (right?)

    mmmm, layer blending ftw

  7. #7

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    that's because the second image is not sharper... it has higher acutance... acutance is a measure of edge contrast rather than visibility of detail (sharpness)... the article's author seems not to differentiate the two...
    Last edited by theRBK; 7th January 2008 at 03:21 AM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    refreshing article to read, thanks theveed.
    flickr me here ;)

  9. #9

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Great article to clarify some misconceptions.

    But at the end of the day, viewers love sharp-looking images. And even though it means over-sharpened fakies, that's alright since it's only for web viewing. I do agree that one should not over-sharpen the hi-res image and ruin the details. Having said that, the article did mention how different printers apply sharpening. So it takes an experienced person to know when and how much sharpness to apply.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    1,084

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    RBK: Great point, never did he mention accutance in the article, only resolution...

    Here's another one for you guys..

    http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Phot...harpening.html

  11. #11

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Tks to TS for showing us this article. Super good read.
    Jerfotography Nikon D300
    Power by iMac MBP iPhone 6+ iPad Air

  12. #12

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Quote Originally Posted by theRBK View Post
    that's because the second image is not sharper... it has higher acutance... acutance is a measure of edge contrast rather than visibility of detail (sharpness)... the article's author seems not to differentiate the two...
    To be fair, i think he did, altho in passing. Somewhere in the middle of the article, Quote: "Sharpening like this prints well but would be quite wrong for web display, ... the Radius setting determines how coarse the acutance line effect looks, and how contrasts are altered." Unquote.

    His point about not messing with reality is worth remembering. I agree that the iris looks "nicer" in the second overly sharpened shot but it is not "real." The iris has lower contrast compared to the eyelashes and therefore should look less sharp. In the author's own words: "The detail on the eyeball (which deserves retouching carefully on a final image) is precisely focused, and having lower contrast but higher frequency (fineness of detail) gives a more accurate indicator of a properly sharp digital image."

    Seems like some selective sharpening procedure will give better results...

  13. #13

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Quote Originally Posted by Viewpoint View Post
    To be fair, i think he did, altho in passing. Somewhere in the middle of the article, Quote: "Sharpening like this prints well but would be quite wrong for web display, ... the Radius setting determines how coarse the acutance line effect looks, and how contrasts are altered." Unquote.
    unfortunately, by not making a clear distinction, the idea of sharpness (vs. acutance) still remains fudged up instead of getting clearer...

    personally, I'm of the school of thought that what looks good is more important than what looks "real"... reality is a subjective thing in any case (as is what looks good, granted)... for me an image is an interpretation of the subject by the photographer/retoucher... which is why its an art rather than a science, subjective rather than objective (unless one is taking images for scientific record)... and why the photographer/retoucher is so important in the process and not a mere operator of equipment
    Last edited by theRBK; 7th January 2008 at 02:20 PM.

  14. #14
    Senior Member Override2Zion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Singapore/Bangkok Thailand
    Posts
    2,111

    Default Re: True Sharpness vs Fake Sharpness article

    Quote Originally Posted by theveed View Post
    read the article for the reason
    Very informative, thanks for sharing
    Nikon D200/D700/D800 User :)
    [www.PositiveStudioProductions.com]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •