How SHARP is SHARP?

I?ll admit I?m a stickler for SHARP pictures. I cut my teeth in photography on an 8?X10? view camera with a dark cloth over my head and a loupe to check focus on the ground glass. F/64 was what I stopped down the lens to, and this huge wooden camera was mounted on a 400 lb. tripod, (camera movement wasn?t an issue).

I know those days are gone and we?re in the digicam age, but still shouldn?t pics be sharp? I?m often amazed when SOFT pictures get compliments or even votes in the contest here, (and I?m not referring to Terry?s winning shot this week).

Does anyone else reject unsharp pics?
Is it the quality of the equipment or the technique of the user?
I?ve heard that a 3 MegaPixel digi is the minimum and the maximum of what you need. Is that true?
How many of these soft pics are due to poor compression of the .JPEG file?

I?d really like to hear from all the folks with problems as well as the solutions.
Maybe we can clear up the whole matter on this thread here.

Phil, I think like anything else, its all in how much you practice. I have debated folks many times when somebody asks for advice on digital cameras. I have seen those who claim to "know" say that you simply must have a 3mp digital or the pictures will just suck. That advice is usually taken as gosphel, and the newbie runs out and buys a 1000 dollar digital and then is upset when his photos suck. My point is, its not near as important to have the top of the line camera as it is to practice and explore all your options with what you have.

I suppose poor compression is part of the problem, it took me a while to figure out that you had to do a bit more than simply resize the pic by just specifying the number of pixels.

I have a couple of digitals, and I have gotten (in my opinion) some amazingly sharp quality pics from my cheap, low-end 1.3mp Olympus. It maybe a tad more work than if I was using a 3mp 1000 dollar job, but it can be done.

So, to answer one of your questions, I would think that 90 percent of the time, the fault is the user and not the equipment.

Recently I did a photo of one of my knives with the cheap Olympus, and I would venture to say that the quality is as good or better than many "pro" pics. Maybe not in composition, but sharpness and lighting. That comes from having shot thousands of digital pics and many hours of practicing and experimenting with softwate adjustments. Its a factory knife, so dont worry I wont pollute the forum by showing it here

Also, I have seen it argued before that poor sharpness is due somewhat to the limitations of a computers display. In some instances that could be true, but after much practice, I think its something that can be easily compensated for.

Phil, I have to say that I want SHARP! A photo of a knife should look like you would get cut looking at it. (my opinion) Like you, I have tried everything from 8x10 on down. But what I have noticed more than the equipment has been the operator. All cameras have their limitations and once one knows what they are you can work around them. On anything below a 4x5 I never use a tripod unless it is a time exposure. By using my studio lights I can maintain a high enough shutter speed to where a tripod isn't needed. But I think the biggest mistake is trying to get closer than the lens will focus. This really shows up in the digital and the rangefinder cameras. Everyone should know how close their camera will focus and try not to get too close. On a sharp image you can crop in, on a soft one it is hopeless.

RichardMT wrote:

"I suppose poor compression is part of the problem, it took me a while to figure out that you had to do a bit more than simply resize the pic by just specifying the number of pixels."

I'd love to have you share some techniques or procedures. I just bought my new one (Sony 3.3mb) mostly because of Phil's same disappointment, and I haven't quite 'gotten' it yet.

So far I simply reduce it with Image Expert (Should I rename it 'I'm no Expert' ?) How much better is a 3.3 reduced to 640x480 than one done at that size. I'd HOPE to see a big difference, but I haven't been overwhelmed yet.

That's why I'm here.

Coop

Coop, I'll try not to be to long winded, but plenty of people will tell ya that I am no matter what.

Ok, I do basically the steps listed on most of my pics now, including the last factory knife pic I mentioned in my first post.

I use Adobe Photodeluxe most of the time as my software. Im familiar with it and find it easy to make it do what I want. Just practice with what you have.

Ok, when I shoot the knife, I do so with the camera on its highest setting. I then load it on my computer and the first thing I do is resize it to the size I want it, usually about 500x300 or 400 (numbers are approximate) and set the dpi to 72. Then I begin the software work on the photo.

One thing I used to do was to make adjustments to the entire picture as I didnt really know how to pick and choose parts of the photo very well. I would sharpen the entire photo which increases file size quite a bit (making for longer load times). Also, it tended to make the photo almost to sharp (making it grainy) if sharpened to many times. The problem was that the knife might look ok, but the logo was a bit blurry. Sharpening the entire thing might fix the logo, but would take the "already sharp enough knife" and make it to sharp and pixelated.

I now do my adjustments in parts. I will section off each part of the knife such as the blade and make my adjustments to it for sharpness, lighting and contrast. Sometimes I will do parts as small as the logo itself right on down to working on each screw, rivot or pivot pin individually to make it just right. I have had some knives where the logo will look fine, but one letter may not be dark enough or just look a bit off from the rest of the logo, I will section off that single letter and work on it until its correct. It mainly comes down to how much time you are willing to put in to a picture. Practice helps alot as I have gotten to a point where I can do major overhauls on many parts of the photo pretty quickly. I figure from shooting the actual pic, doing anywhere from basic to major enhancements to final "ready to show" picture takes from 20 - 30 minutes. The factory knife I did recently was about a 20 minutes job.

The real advantage to only working on parts of the photo that need it, instead of doing blanket adjustments to the entire thing are that it looks better and also keeps file size down quite a bit.

When I am done with my photo, I will save several copies of it. When using Adobe, you have options when saving such as quality. I will save a very high quality, medium and low quality copies (there is a range of each selection as well, for instance the high qality will have a choice of 6, 7, or 8 I think, if I remember right). Afterward I will load each one into a window so I can can flip between them to see what looks the best. Saving in different quality has an advantage. Many times you low or medium quality pic will look just as good as a high quality one with no loss of sharpness (at least not that my eyes can tell). You pick the one with the smallest file size that still looks good to you. It really helps when showing them on the web as load times are faster. In many cases a pic of 50 - 60k will look just as good as the same photo in the 200 - 300k range.

As you get more familiar with your camera, then the pic you begin with will improve, however practice with the software also. I have had pics that turn out ok, only the grind lines will not show up well for example. Instead of redoing an otherwise good photo, you can use the software to help bring them out very quickly.

Also, software can give you a new range of backgrounds to use. I personally like to create digital backgrounds and its easily done...just mess with your software and explore all the options it has.

As I said, I tend to be a bit long-winded so you gotta forgive me for that...good knife photography is not rocket science, it just takes a little trial and error.

Richard,

AHA! Much work to be done--and soon for me. I will say that my software right now might limit me. For highlighting, it only has a square, oval, and freehand. Is this what you use? I'm pretty sketchy with the freehand.

Great information on file saving and sizing. I will read and reread this at home with camera and program. I expect changes.

You've treated us to plenty of good info. Treat us to a pic! Thanks so much. News at eleven....

Coop

?By using my studio lights I can maintain a high enough shutter speed to where a tripod isn't needed. But I think the biggest mistake is trying to get closer than the lens will focus. This really shows up in the digital and the rangefinder cameras. Everyone should know how close their camera will focus and try not to get too close. On a sharp image you can crop in, on a soft one it is hopeless. ? Terrill

Terrill you hit on two important points, one is having enough light to shoot by and two is working within the range of your equipment. I don?t think many folks here want to invest in expensive studio type equipment, but there?s no reason not to go out and buy a Daylight Balanced Photo-Flood light or even a quartz halogen light just for your pics. Having enough light will let you stop down (larger f/stop...f/16 for example) your lens more for greater depth of field, while allowing you a shutter speed that will reduce camera movement when shooting. I don?t know how anyone could do closeup work with a rangefinder camera, it?s almost impossible to see what the camera sees. But, learning what the Closest Focusing Distance on your camera is vital to taking sharp pics. If you don?t have a macro setting on the lens your using Close-up filters will let you fill the frame with your knives.

Rich, stop being such a tease and show us your picture. You may not be able to enter the contest, but you can certainly show us here.

And Rich, it?s good to know there are people even more anal about their pics than I am.

Once again not everyone may want to take the time to master an image editing program and work on their pics a a pixel by pixel level. That?s why I?m reposting this. I feel this is the minimum your knife pics deserve and it only takes seconds to do.
Shortest Adobe PhotoDeluxe Tutorial ever.

The only thing I might add to this is Click on the Sharpen button once.

Ok Coop, lets see, your software doesnt sound like it has much in the way of tracing options. Im not familiar with yours, but try this.

Select your freehand tool. Now, I assume that you click a starting place and release the mouse button and trace. If that is the case, then try holding the mouse button down. On some programs you can drag the pointer from spot to spot and it will keep a straight line for you. Then you can release the button and push down again to trace from that point to a different direction. If that works, then be sure and magnify the picture a bit, as tracing around corners and curves sometimes must be done a couple of pixels at a time to keep the true shape of the knife.

If it doesnt work, then maybe you might try another program. Yours maybe fine, and im not suggesting you throw it away, but you might check out Photodeluxe. I think its pretty cheap.

Photo is about 61k. Shot with Olympus D340R 1.3mp digital camera. Background altered with adobe photodeluxe.

I'm a believer! Great job, Rich!

Coop

I'm outa here--off to look for Adobe PD.......

Coop, work on a photo until you have what you want. If you have any problems, start a thread an post the picture. By seeing what you have, it will be easier for everybody tp give you some specific pointers. Also, by posting a photo, you may have thought of something that helped your pic and others can learn from you. Good luck.

Richard: Good call. I'll run one in possibly tonight for critique and sharing. I've already posted plenty before, but not in a critique/learning priority.

Terrill, Phil and Richard--an open thanks for your help and posts. I spent a good amount of time last night playing with resizing, the F-stop, and shutter speed electronically. I found nice differences. You'll see.

I have already got a copy of Adobe PhotoDeluxe on the way. (ver. 3.0 off of eBay for only $18.95 delivered. You gotta love it!) I can't imagine ver 4.0 that much better.

See ya later.

Coop