Getting it sharp in camera! I would agree that is the essence of photography. In this digital age, too many poor photographers use the standard excuse, "I'll sharpen it up later using X, Y or Z software". An excuse mainly used by the "I don't need a tripod for my sooper dooper stabilised telephoto lens" brigade. Photography is not fun or hardly even photography when the majority of the time is spent trying to rescue poor quality images on a computer. Sound advice as always Steve.
Context and intention is key. I have a book of very good portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson of which many are not even close to sharp. For instance a man reclining on the ground with a cat in front of him and the focus at best might be on the man’s foot. But somehow it doesn’t matter. But wildlife photography is really a different game.
Some of my favorite photos didn’t pass the sharpness test, so I fixed that. They’re no longer my favorite. Enter a photo in a contest, minimum requirement is that it’s sharp. Thx Steve
Thank you so much for this video Steve. I already use most of the identifiers you mentioned to critique my photos but the reflection in the eye was something that I had never thought about, maybe because I don't get too many great catchlights (but now you're going to make me go back and look LOL!).
Another great short video, Steve - thanks for taking the trouble to put them together! Now, you have me wondering about just how sharp my favorite photos area!
It's great to see these tips. Much of it comes naturally to us over time but great for beginners. My shots from a few years ago could be much better seeing this then and not learning from mistakes so much. Re third party sharpening, I use Topaz Photo Ai. Noise reduction is great and I generally prefer it to the new Denoise in LRC. But I'm not a fan of their sharpening tools. I fear it becomes obvious in the finished image that sharpening has been done and so try to only use it mildly. At the end of the day, best if the raw image is already sharp hey.
Generally I don't try to appease other photographers. Not like they're going to buy my photos. I'm fairly picky. If it doesn't bug me it's likely not going to bug my clients.
Steve, too often I see pics of an oof subject that was made to look "CRUNCHY" in an attempt to sharpen it, but because of "thread restrictions", I can't critique and help them. Good video!
Resolution of the camera is a big factor, I have many images that appear soft on my 50mp or 61mp cameras but if they were taken on a 20mp camera they would be perfectly sharp. So if im happy with an image but it appears soft I will downsize to 20mp and see how it looks, half of the time the image sharpens up nicely. It's hard to resolve the full 61mp of detail with a zoom lens, you need to be at the sharpest apature, no teleconvers, low ISO and no air distortion so it can give you false negatives, where if you used a lower megapixel camera you would be happier with more images.
Excellent information! My new Z8 seems to be upping my sharpening game now that I’m getting the hang of it! Of course, I can thank you for that too! I appreciate all that you do!
Great as always Steve, it seems to me when you are at the far end of your Zoom Range on far away subjects that's when issues tend to creep in the most since you have the effect of the atmospheric conditions shooting from a great distance away. I toss more than a few images in the trash bin under those circumstances. Take care - Jeff
Steve, Canon shooter here. R5 with the 100-500. I like the channel, but would appreciate if some of the content was more inclusive of Canon too. I’m 3 years into bird photography, and it’s the gear I own. I might make a different gear decision if I were starting today. This isn’t a cheap hobby! These are exciting times for us photography enthusiasts! I still watch you for general tips and do appreciate you for the time it must take to put these together. Thanks.
we judge sharpness very differently from person to person, hence the forums are full people with varying expectations arguing their outcomes and defending their photos and/or gear purchases. I have seen such in Steve's comment sections too - I recall nikon's 200-500 where Steve had claimed sharp images at 1/x of shutter speed while a viewer would claim going "10x" slower easily in the comments. Similarly there's a chap on ytb shooting that lens w 2x TC wide open claiming perfect sharpness on apsc. go figure.
Very interesting discussion. I now realize that some of my favorite photos are not completely sharp. I still like them but this gives me motivation to improve. I’m almost certain the culprit is being too far away. I took some test shots of a Canada Goose just now and am amazed at how much more detail could be captured from about 20 vs 35 feet away.
It can, but it works better if you start with a sharp image. When I've tried Topaz Sharpen with even slightly out of focus images I've seldom been happy with the results. When the image is in-focus and just needs some definition (like we sometimes see with teleconverters), it works really well - often too well (it's pronounced to over sharpening).
Good advice. The only thing I'd like to add, is that if I have taken a burst of nearly identical shots, and lets say 6 of them come out perfectly critically sharp > judging by the eye of the bird < I will then go on and compare other parts of the body, to decide which of those 6 shots I'm going to keep, and fully process. I do find shots in which the eye couldn't be sharper, but other parts of the birds body, are not as sharp. This is because sometimes, the birds body might move slightly, but the eye doesn't. I agree the eye is the most critical, but if I have a choice between a shot with only a sharp eye, or, a shot with a sharp eye, and most of its body too, I'll go with the latter.
Thanks for great and informative video. Since moving to digital I have issues with assessing sharpness of my images. I am starting to suspect that I am not assessing the images correctly and given my equipment ( macbook pro and ipad) I might be expecting too much from my viewing setup. One nugget I gleaned from your video is that for non 4 k screens the magnification shoold not exceed 100%
High res monitors are tricky. For HD, 2K, and under I think 100% is pretty good and 200% is just too much. For higher res screens, 4K to 5K, I like to go in 200%. I have a 5K monitor and a HD monitor side by side and from a magnification standpoint, 200% looks the same on the 5K as 100% does on the HD. Where it's tricky is when you're in that 3K range - my laptop falls into that category so I often toggle between 100% and 200%.
@@backcountrygallery I got into Marvel comics in 1978 -- but I first enjoyed the characters in 1966, when they made their television debut: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marvel_Super_Heroes
I use a fuji APSc system with a 150-600 lens which has a minimum aperture of f8 at 600 mm and f11 if using a 1.4 extender so usually at relatively high ISO. My current processing method is to batch process all my keepers in DXO PL7 elite with a preset using XD prime denoise and 80% detail recovery as I find if sharpness is an issue getting rid of the noise must be done before you start to process. I then process in LR and almost never use sharpening and in some cases have to knock it back a little but I usually do this with texture or clarity. Oversharp photos are just about as bad as unsharp photos but your tips are good ones. Thankyou
100% agree - I find most modern noise reduction software tends to take it too far. I often find myself fighting it. Lately, I've pretty much only been using Lightroom DeNoise. It works well and doesn't add a bunch of sharpening. There are some tricks to getting the most out of it, I might do a video...
I find that if a photo I take isn't sharp then it isn't sharp and no post processing will make it sharp. However, if a photo is sharp post processing can really make it pop when it comes to sharpness.
Been shooting my entire life and never had so much trouble in getting sharp images with any R model camera. Trying to figure out if my technique has changed as I am getting old causing softer images? Or hopefully with so many choices in setting combinations in the new mirrorless Canons, maybe have one important setting added or missing that causes soft images? Shooting basketball in a gym with the R6 and the ef85 f1.8 or shooting geese on local islands with the R7 and 100-500...more soft images than sharp. Man am I frustrated. I am on the edge to sell all mirrorless stuff and dig out my old 5D3 with the 100-400 mark 2. Or find a new hobby. Take care.
You might want to post some photos with the issues over at the BCG Forums. We don't have a ton of Canon shooters, but there are some who might be able to help or at least point you in the right direction :)
Nooooo! Work through it, it’ll be worth it! Much of the initial problems you’ll encounter is just figuring out the many focus options. It takes a while. I view every shooting situation as a practice session for the next.
Not an argument, but how can I make a soft or even blurry shot into something useful? I have loads of half decent shots in all kinds of photography but I don't know what to do with them, other than trying my luck at doing imaginative collages
As far as I know, there's really no way to fix something like that. Topaz has a sharpen program that can help in some cases, but my luck is very spotty with it. It comes down to what you captured in the field - if you didn't get the detail, there's no way to recover it.
My trouble is that I keep hearing about oversharpening but not sure I see it. Does Lightroom really let you do that? Also what’s with these other sliders that never seem to do much of anything, the radius and detail?
I over sharpen about 4:55 in the video and bring it back down using Lightroom, so I think it can for sure. Plus overuse of things like clarity and texture and make it even worse.
Steve, at times i have a photo where the single point focus is not on the eye ball, but to me the photo looks very sharp, is that my imagination? Is there a tolerance like dynamic around the single point focus? @@backcountrygallery
@@raysanders332 I see. For the most part, no - it tends to focus at the point under it. However, the reported position isn't always accurate and my guess is that what's happening. It's easy for it to be a bit off, especially if you're hand-holding, the animal is moving a bit, and even VR can make a difference since it moves the image circle. I always look at those overlays as an approximate position. :)
When will they come out with AI that will go through a photo session and somehow flag the photos for sharpness? We can use Steve’s photos to train it! That would save me a ton of time, if I could trust it.
@@backcountrygallery There is sort of rough beta program available from Microsoft called Dove that is trying to do that. Not sure it works but also not sure my photos are the sharpest or that much different from each other.
Slight smudge. Image is ruined. Yeah. I sure go watch a photo from one centimeter distance at the eyes alone. If the image from a distance appears sharp (after crop), it is sharp. Pixel peeping leads to hardware acquisition syndrome.
@@csc-photo Not sharp at 200%. At that point you're already past the actual full size... Of course it will then not look sharp. I can keep rewatching it and it still will not make any sense. A good image and good sharpness aren't mutually exclusive either. What about ICM photography? Long exposure photography? Sorry. This video does not make sense. >"Photography is about having a good time. So use this information as a guide but don't get too caught up in it." >Can YOUR PHOTOS Pass My Sharpness Tests? Why does this video then even exist? Watching this full video equals to being too caught up in it. Pixel peeping to this degree really takes the joy out of photography.
Why? You're not looking at pixels when you take the image, so the enjoying of the process of taking the image is the same, sharp or not. And once you review the image and it's tack sharp where it should be then that's more rewarding than if it's soft. I do quite a bit of panning at slow shutter speeds, handheld. Granted I don't delete every images which isn't tack sharp, some are still good even if not perfectly sharp. However, those where I get the face/helmet of a motorcycle rider really in focus are sure my favorites. Plus I enjoy it a lot having achieved something not that easy. And yes, on a nice, large print, the contrast between tack sharp focus points and blurred parts of an images creates a wow effect.
@marcusbraun8889 That is more sensible. Especially for large prints. But for common web content you will barely see a difference if it is slightly off.
As I mentioned in the video, 200% is for higher res monitors. I have a 5K and 1080 monitor side by side. When I look at 100% on the 1080, it looks just like 200% does in the 5K. 100% on the 5K looks like 50% on the 1080. I would don't recommend 200% on a 1080 monitor. As for photography that uses blur as a creative element, that's an obvious exception and I feel like you're being deliberately pedantic about it. The reason this video exists is because many people are trying to improve their photography and want to know a good baseline for sharp images.
Some of those example shots were with things like the Nikon 180-600 or 400 4.5 and I think that sandhill was with the Sony 200-600. Thankfully, a $15K lens is NOT mandatory :)
@backcountrygallery exactly...a 600mm is basically a 600mm...Sure a $12k 600f4 is a little sharper, but the more budget friendly lenses are really only lacking in wide aperture.
I completly understand your point, but nowadays it is possible to take very sharp images with cheaper lenses too, which fullfill Steves criteria in this video (of course not always but quite often). For a long time I used the 200-500mm 5.6 from Nikon and the sharpness is still incredible of that lense (and I own also more professional lenses like 300 2.8 or 500 f4).
@danielj.5012 I shoot with the Nikon 200-500mm and with a little help from Topaz on longer range or high iso shots it does the job......well said. I used a friend's Nikon 500pf last winter and I think that will be my next lens, it's not a lot sharper than the 200-500mm, but the AF speed is definitely worth the upgrade.
@@bassangler73 I think that’s a good choice - at the moment I’m selling my 500 f4 to get the 500pf. It’s so much lighter and the sharpness is comparable. And you are right: the af of the 200-500 is really slow compared to the 500pf.
![Digital Circus Episode 4 [TRAILER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/abZtsmMUbJo/mqdefault.jpg)
Hard to argue with a guy who keeps showing off extremely convincingly sharp photos.
Very informative Steve, and the video is short and to the point. Thanks.
Getting it sharp in camera! I would agree that is the essence of photography. In this digital age, too many poor photographers use the standard excuse, "I'll sharpen it up later using X, Y or Z software". An excuse mainly used by the "I don't need a tripod for my sooper dooper stabilised telephoto lens" brigade.
Photography is not fun or hardly even photography when the majority of the time is spent trying to rescue poor quality images on a computer.
Sound advice as always Steve.
Context and intention is key. I have a book of very good portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson of which many are not even close to sharp. For instance a man reclining on the ground with a cat in front of him and the focus at best might be on the man’s foot. But somehow it doesn’t matter. But wildlife photography is really a different game.
Thanks Steve. Keeping it simple and understandable is your forte.
Some of my favorite photos didn’t pass the sharpness test, so I fixed that. They’re no longer my favorite. Enter a photo in a contest, minimum requirement is that it’s sharp. Thx Steve
What a great video. Your stuff is top notch.
As always, an excellent short tutorial ❤
Thank you so much for this video Steve. I already use most of the identifiers you mentioned to critique my photos but the reflection in the eye was something that I had never thought about, maybe because I don't get too many great catchlights (but now you're going to make me go back and look LOL!).
Another great short video, Steve - thanks for taking the trouble to put them together! Now, you have me wondering about just how sharp my favorite photos area!
It's great to see these tips. Much of it comes naturally to us over time but great for beginners. My shots from a few years ago could be much better seeing this then and not learning from mistakes so much. Re third party sharpening, I use Topaz Photo Ai. Noise reduction is great and I generally prefer it to the new Denoise in LRC. But I'm not a fan of their sharpening tools. I fear it becomes obvious in the finished image that sharpening has been done and so try to only use it mildly. At the end of the day, best if the raw image is already sharp hey.
Generally I don't try to appease other photographers. Not like they're going to buy my photos. I'm fairly picky. If it doesn't bug me it's likely not going to bug my clients.
Steve, too often I see pics of an oof subject that was made to look "CRUNCHY" in an attempt to sharpen it, but because of "thread restrictions", I can't critique and help them. Good video!
A great short video. Love the suggestions
Great video, thanks steve
Excellent tutorial video. Thank you so much for sharing your expertise and knowledge. ❤
Funny thing, after your video an AI sharpness ad popped up on RUclips!
LOL! Sounds about right!
I got that one on the preroll.
Steve, you have such incredible photography skills! I just wish I could be half as good as you!
Just practice, practice & practice
Pretty much - it's all a learned skill. My first efforts would hurt your eyes LOL!!
Resolution of the camera is a big factor, I have many images that appear soft on my 50mp or 61mp cameras but if they were taken on a 20mp camera they would be perfectly sharp.
So if im happy with an image but it appears soft I will downsize to 20mp and see how it looks, half of the time the image sharpens up nicely.
It's hard to resolve the full 61mp of detail with a zoom lens, you need to be at the sharpest apature, no teleconvers, low ISO and no air distortion so it can give you false negatives, where if you used a lower megapixel camera you would be happier with more images.
Excellent information! My new Z8 seems to be upping my sharpening game now that I’m getting the hang of it! Of course, I can thank you for that too! I appreciate all that you do!
Appreciate all your great video tips and advice! Sharpness is something that I am always trying to improve on.
Excellent, with concrete tips that viewers can follow. Thanks for sharing. I just wish my LCD or EVF had sufficient resolution to judge in-camera.
Great as always Steve, it seems to me when you are at the far end of your Zoom Range on far away subjects that's when issues tend to creep in the most since you have the effect of the atmospheric conditions shooting from a great distance away. I toss more than a few images in the trash bin under those circumstances. Take care - Jeff
Great photography content, as always!
Steve, Canon shooter here. R5 with the 100-500. I like the channel, but would appreciate if some of the content was more inclusive of Canon too. I’m 3 years into bird photography, and it’s the gear I own. I might make a different gear decision if I were starting today. This isn’t a cheap hobby! These are exciting times for us photography enthusiasts! I still watch you for general tips and do appreciate you for the time it must take to put these together. Thanks.
I 100% agreed with your criteria. My first point to go is the bumping and the eye ring of my bird to define if i got win image yet.
thanks Steve, very nice informations and tips.
we judge sharpness very differently from person to person, hence the forums are full people with varying expectations arguing their outcomes and defending their photos and/or gear purchases. I have seen such in Steve's comment sections too - I recall nikon's 200-500 where Steve had claimed sharp images at 1/x of shutter speed while a viewer would claim going "10x" slower easily in the comments. Similarly there's a chap on ytb shooting that lens w 2x TC wide open claiming perfect sharpness on apsc. go figure.
Great advice, Steve.
good info. Thanks, Steve, for sharing.
steve, how do you sharpen generally and add sharpening if it’s needed?
Very interesting discussion. I now realize that some of my favorite photos are not completely sharp. I still like them but this gives me motivation to improve. I’m almost certain the culprit is being too far away. I took some test shots of a Canada Goose just now and am amazed at how much more detail could be captured from about 20 vs 35 feet away.
Distance makes a huge difference - the trick is getting the animal to cooperate :)
Great videos. always.......... thank you
What program do you recommend to sharpen up the images?
Steve: Look for fine details in the iris
Me looking at my photos: Is that a bear or a dog...I can't tell
LOL!
Great video! Do you think Topaz does not help with photo sharpening?
It can, but it works better if you start with a sharp image. When I've tried Topaz Sharpen with even slightly out of focus images I've seldom been happy with the results. When the image is in-focus and just needs some definition (like we sometimes see with teleconverters), it works really well - often too well (it's pronounced to over sharpening).
@@backcountrygallery thank you for your answer Steve, will not waste money in it then.
Good advice. The only thing I'd like to add, is that if I have taken a burst of nearly identical shots, and lets say 6 of them come out perfectly critically sharp > judging by the eye of the bird < I will then go on and compare other parts of the body, to decide which of those 6 shots I'm going to keep, and fully process. I do find shots in which the eye couldn't be sharper, but other parts of the birds body, are not as sharp. This is because sometimes, the birds body might move slightly, but the eye doesn't. I agree the eye is the most critical, but if I have a choice between a shot with only a sharp eye, or, a shot with a sharp eye, and most of its body too, I'll go with the latter.
Very good point :)
Thanks for great and informative video. Since moving to digital I have issues with assessing sharpness of my images. I am starting to suspect that I am not assessing the images correctly and given my equipment ( macbook pro and ipad) I might be expecting too much from my viewing setup. One nugget I gleaned from your video is that for non 4 k screens the magnification shoold not exceed 100%
High res monitors are tricky. For HD, 2K, and under I think 100% is pretty good and 200% is just too much. For higher res screens, 4K to 5K, I like to go in 200%. I have a 5K monitor and a HD monitor side by side and from a magnification standpoint, 200% looks the same on the 5K as 100% does on the HD. Where it's tricky is when you're in that 3K range - my laptop falls into that category so I often toggle between 100% and 200%.
I like your Captain America mug! 😊
Thanks! I've had in in videos before and no one has ever noticed it :)
@@backcountrygallery I'm a little bit (i.e., too much) of a Marvel fan!😮
@@tenrec Same here - I'm embarrassed to admit how many times I've watched the Infinity Saga :)
@@backcountrygallery I got into Marvel comics in 1978 -- but I first enjoyed the characters in 1966, when they made their television debut:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Marvel_Super_Heroes
Steve, are these stats from all photographs you’ve taken, the “keepers” or the ones that make the final grade?
I use a fuji APSc system with a 150-600 lens which has a minimum aperture of f8 at 600 mm and f11 if using a 1.4 extender so usually at relatively high ISO. My current processing method is to batch process all my keepers in DXO PL7 elite with a preset using XD prime denoise and 80% detail recovery as I find if sharpness is an issue getting rid of the noise must be done before you start to process. I then process in LR and almost never use sharpening and in some cases have to knock it back a little but I usually do this with texture or clarity. Oversharp photos are just about as bad as unsharp photos but your tips are good ones. Thankyou
100% agree - I find most modern noise reduction software tends to take it too far. I often find myself fighting it. Lately, I've pretty much only been using Lightroom DeNoise. It works well and doesn't add a bunch of sharpening. There are some tricks to getting the most out of it, I might do a video...
The problem I have this time of year is when the frost starts to sublimate and it forms a heat haze effect.
I find that if a photo I take isn't sharp then it isn't sharp and no post processing will make it sharp. However, if a photo is sharp post processing can really make it pop when it comes to sharpness.
Great, now I have to refinance my home & buy the A1+600f4! Actually, I get a few super sharp SOOC photos, but few & far between them.
Lots of sharp glass out there - I get really nice stuff with the 200-600.
nice and informative
Been shooting my entire life and never had so much trouble in getting sharp images with any R model camera. Trying to figure out if my technique has changed as I am getting old causing softer images? Or hopefully with so many choices in setting combinations in the new mirrorless Canons, maybe have one important setting added or missing that causes soft images? Shooting basketball in a gym with the R6 and the ef85 f1.8 or shooting geese on local islands with the R7 and 100-500...more soft images than sharp. Man am I frustrated. I am on the edge to sell all mirrorless stuff and dig out my old 5D3 with the 100-400 mark 2. Or find a new hobby. Take care.
You might want to post some photos with the issues over at the BCG Forums. We don't have a ton of Canon shooters, but there are some who might be able to help or at least point you in the right direction :)
Nooooo! Work through it, it’ll be worth it! Much of the initial problems you’ll encounter is just figuring out the many focus options. It takes a while. I view every shooting situation as a practice session for the next.
great video
Hi Steve, where can I find your shirts and jackets? Thanks!
Thanks for your interest!
We have a few things here:
www.etsy.com/shop/BCGMerch
We'll be doing more, just haven't had a chance lately :)
@@backcountrygallery Oh thanks! Steve what beginer wildlife kit do you recomend for under 2100 dollars?
Doses anyone know of any tools or software to cull out of focus photos, or pick the photos which are in focus?
well explained, i am an events photographer
Not an argument, but how can I make a soft or even blurry shot into something useful? I have loads of half decent shots in all kinds of photography but I don't know what to do with them, other than trying my luck at doing imaginative collages
As far as I know, there's really no way to fix something like that. Topaz has a sharpen program that can help in some cases, but my luck is very spotty with it. It comes down to what you captured in the field - if you didn't get the detail, there's no way to recover it.
But can you do a blurry photo with a camera from Sharp? 🤔
My trouble is that I keep hearing about oversharpening but not sure I see it. Does Lightroom really let you do that? Also what’s with these other sliders that never seem to do much of anything, the radius and detail?
I over sharpen about 4:55 in the video and bring it back down using Lightroom, so I think it can for sure. Plus overuse of things like clarity and texture and make it even worse.
Steve, is there any tolerance with the single point focus?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Steve, at times i have a photo where the single point focus is not on the eye ball, but to me the photo looks very sharp, is that my imagination? Is there a tolerance like dynamic around the single point focus? @@backcountrygallery
@@raysanders332 I see. For the most part, no - it tends to focus at the point under it. However, the reported position isn't always accurate and my guess is that what's happening. It's easy for it to be a bit off, especially if you're hand-holding, the animal is moving a bit, and even VR can make a difference since it moves the image circle. I always look at those overlays as an approximate position. :)
Thanks.@@backcountrygallery
seems I am not that close to the subject usually.
When will they come out with AI that will go through a photo session and somehow flag the photos for sharpness? We can use Steve’s photos to train it! That would save me a ton of time, if I could trust it.
I would love to have software that does that!
@@backcountrygallery There is sort of rough beta program available from Microsoft called Dove that is trying to do that. Not sure it works but also not sure my photos are the sharpest or that much different from each other.
Sorry, called Project DoveEye, not Dove.
What did this vid do?
Have anyone ever put there tripod on ice in order to get eye level with an animal or is that too extreme? 😂
Slight smudge. Image is ruined.
Yeah. I sure go watch a photo from one centimeter distance at the eyes alone.
If the image from a distance appears sharp (after crop), it is sharp.
Pixel peeping leads to hardware acquisition syndrome.
Please re-watch / watch the Here Come The Arguments section 5:08 😆
@@csc-photo
Not sharp at 200%. At that point you're already past the actual full size... Of course it will then not look sharp.
I can keep rewatching it and it still will not make any sense.
A good image and good sharpness aren't mutually exclusive either.
What about ICM photography? Long exposure photography?
Sorry. This video does not make sense.
>"Photography is about having a good time. So use this information as a guide but don't get too caught up in it."
>Can YOUR PHOTOS Pass My Sharpness Tests?
Why does this video then even exist? Watching this full video equals to being too caught up in it.
Pixel peeping to this degree really takes the joy out of photography.
Why? You're not looking at pixels when you take the image, so the enjoying of the process of taking the image is the same, sharp or not.
And once you review the image and it's tack sharp where it should be then that's more rewarding than if it's soft.
I do quite a bit of panning at slow shutter speeds, handheld. Granted I don't delete every images which isn't tack sharp, some are still good even if not perfectly sharp. However, those where I get the face/helmet of a motorcycle rider really in focus are sure my favorites. Plus I enjoy it a lot having achieved something not that easy.
And yes, on a nice, large print, the contrast between tack sharp focus points and blurred parts of an images creates a wow effect.
@marcusbraun8889
That is more sensible. Especially for large prints. But for common web content you will barely see a difference if it is slightly off.
As I mentioned in the video, 200% is for higher res monitors. I have a 5K and 1080 monitor side by side. When I look at 100% on the 1080, it looks just like 200% does in the 5K. 100% on the 5K looks like 50% on the 1080. I would don't recommend 200% on a 1080 monitor.
As for photography that uses blur as a creative element, that's an obvious exception and I feel like you're being deliberately pedantic about it.
The reason this video exists is because many people are trying to improve their photography and want to know a good baseline for sharp images.
I already know that my pictures will not pass the test, so I don't need to watch this 🙂
LOL :)
sadly not everyone has these super dooper camera lenses to get wildlife shots like yours
Some of those example shots were with things like the Nikon 180-600 or 400 4.5 and I think that sandhill was with the Sony 200-600. Thankfully, a $15K lens is NOT mandatory :)
@backcountrygallery exactly...a 600mm is basically a 600mm...Sure a $12k 600f4 is a little sharper, but the more budget friendly lenses are really only lacking in wide aperture.
I completly understand your point, but nowadays it is possible to take very sharp images with cheaper lenses too, which fullfill Steves criteria in this video (of course not always but quite often). For a long time I used the 200-500mm 5.6 from Nikon and the sharpness is still incredible of that lense (and I own also more professional lenses like 300 2.8 or 500 f4).
@danielj.5012 I shoot with the Nikon 200-500mm and with a little help from Topaz on longer range or high iso shots it does the job......well said. I used a friend's Nikon 500pf last winter and I think that will be my next lens, it's not a lot sharper than the 200-500mm, but the AF speed is definitely worth the upgrade.
@@bassangler73 I think that’s a good choice - at the moment I’m selling my 500 f4 to get the 500pf. It’s so much lighter and the sharpness is comparable. And you are right: the af of the 200-500 is really slow compared to the 500pf.