Unsharp images and shallow DOF - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

07/22/2002 06:35:19 PM · #1

I haven''t yet voted on half the photos and have been amazed at the number of photos that either have a blurry foreground or are not nearly as sharp as they could be. I''m not referring to the one with an intentional foreground blur either. Am I being too picky or do we need to emphasize the importance of using unsharp mask with images produced from a digital camera?

My outtakes are Here.

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/22/2002 6:42:39 PM.

welcher

Canon EOS-5D

07/22/2002 06:53:33 PM · #2

Originally posted by Gene L.:
I haven''t yet voted on half the photos and have been amazed at the number of photos that either have a blurry foreground or are not nearly as sharp as they could be. I''m not referring to the one with an intentional foreground blur either. Am I being too picky or do we need to emphasize the importance of using unsharp mask with images produced from a digital camera?

My outtakes are Here

Examples? How does a voter know when foreground blur is intentional?

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/22/2002 07:09:31 PM · #3

Originally posted by welcher:
Examples? How does a voter know when foreground blur is intentional?
[/i]

Admittedly, that is subjective and prone to error. Ridges is the one I was referring to as a purposed blur. The DOF issue has come up more than I expected, but not nearly as much as the sharpness issue. I am seeing many photos that are good, but could use more sharpness. On the last challenge I actually imported some photos into my photo editor and sharpened them just to make sure that I wasn't giving bad advice. I'm not complaining so much as wondering if I should be mentioning this or if I'm just being too picky.

Agamemnon

Olympus C-700UZ

07/22/2002 07:18:27 PM · #4

What does unsharp mask do?

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

07/22/2002 07:23:46 PM · #5

Originally posted by Agamemnon:
What does unsharp mask do?

it lets you sharpen pictures and gives you a LOT of control over the process.

mci

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

07/22/2002 07:24:50 PM · #6

Originally posted by Gene L.:
Admittedly, that is subjective and prone to error. Ridges is the one I was referring to as a purposed blur. The DOF issue has come up more than I expected, but not nearly as much as the sharpness issue. I am seeing many photos that are good, but could use more sharpness. On the last challenge I actually imported some photos into my photo editor and sharpened them just to make sure that I wasn''t giving bad advice. I''m not complaining so much as wondering if I should be mentioning this or if I''m just being too picky.

As a person who was on the receiving end of one of your "needs sharpening" comments in the last challenge, I''d have to say that you''re being pretty picky. I''ve certainly been known to sharpen an image or two, but with this particular photo (which, btw, was among the first flower shots I ever took; I should have known better), I much prefered the unsharpened image. In my opinion, sharpening can add an unnatural look to a photo, and can often do more harm than good. I believe that if a photo is properly in focus, no sharpening should be needed after you get it out of the camera.

Of course, as with anything else in life, a range of personal opinions exist which are all perfectly valid.

- Mike

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/22/2002 7:26:10 PM.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

07/22/2002 07:28:58 PM · #7

Originally posted by welcher:

Examples? How does a voter know when foreground blur is intentional?

Good question. Generally speaking, when I notice that a compositional "rule" is broken, I look for a reason. Does the out-of-focus foreground serve to draw the viewers eye to a particular portion of the photograph? Does an unusual choice of framing create leading lines that force your attention to a particular point? Basically, I will accept any "rule-breaking" that seems to add to the photo rather than detract from it. If it does not help the photo, I'll consider that fact whether it was intentional or not.

-Terry

puppet10

Canon Digital IXUS

07/22/2002 07:44:26 PM · #8

I'm wondering maybe some people are overestimating the sharpness possible in a 640x480 shot. Depending on the subject there's a definate limit to how sharp the pic can be at that resolution leading to a slightly blurry look in some (most) cases even after an unsharp mask is applied.

If almost all the pics look to blurry to you maybe its the measure of what constitutes blurry and not the pics themselves.

jimmsp

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron SP 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD for Nikon

07/22/2002 08:48:57 PM · #9

Originally posted by clubjuggle:
Originally posted by welcher:
[i]
Examples? How does a voter know when foreground blur is intentional?

Good question. Generally speaking, when I notice that a compositional "rule" is broken, I look for a reason. Does the out-of-focus foreground serve to draw the viewers eye to a particular portion of the photograph? Does an unusual choice of framing create leading lines that force your attention to a particular point? Basically, I will accept any "rule-breaking" that seems to add to the photo rather than detract from it. If it does not help the photo, I'll consider that fact whether it was intentional or not.

-Terry
[/i]

I finally got through all of the submitted photos on my "round 1" voting. I too noticed a large number of photos using a shallow DOF - and I am pretty sure that some of the photos suffer because of it. A shallow DOF can be fine with a well defined subject, but when one is trying to show textures, it doesn't always work. In some of them, I get the impression that the large aperture used was to get more light, not to improve the photo.
Well, I'll look at them again in round 2.

07/22/2002 10:35:17 PM · #10

Originally posted by mci:
As a person who was on the receiving end of one of your "needs sharpening" comments in the last challenge, I''d have to say that you''re being pretty picky. I''ve certainly been known to sharpen an image or two, but with this particular photo (which, btw, was among the first flower shots I ever took; I should have known better), I much prefered the unsharpened image. In my opinion, sharpening can add an unnatural look to a photo, and can often do more harm than good. I believe that if a photo is properly in focus, no sharpening should be needed after you get it out of the camera.

Of course, as with anything else in life, a range of personal opinions exist which are all perfectly valid.

- Mike
[/i]

For the record, I took another look at that one and realize that it was an issue of DOF not focus and very minor at that. Either I needed to be more specific or I may have made a mistake and not taken enough time viewing that one. Either way, I apologize. For that shot I think it so minor that I certainly wouldn''t have lowered the score. I believe that composition and lighting are key elements while sharpness within reasonable limits, is of minor concern.

I agree with you that too much sharpening can lead to an unnatural look. I do however take exception with you that sharpening is not needed if the focus is proper. Most cameras, certainly every one that I''ve used, do not achieve optimal sharpness without some post sharpening. I use sharpening on most shots unless trying to achieve a softer look. The problem with in camera sharpening is that it can limit the effectiveness of some other processing, such as noise removal or resizing. Of course I''m not an expert, but I have seen enough discussion on the subject to be convinced that this is true (FWIW).

* This message has been edited by the author on 7/22/2002 10:35:57 PM.