|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/13/2008
|
Here is also the attachment. Would we ever want the right curve as a "sharp depiction" of the left????
cheers!
Nick
|
On "sharpness" |
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/13/2008
|
You might call it "sharp", but this is definitely not "sharp". (Definitions are not matter of gusto.) It is oversharpening to the degree of a pixelwise view of the world. Any professional photographer would tell you exactly this. You are of course the one that chooses what to do and what to like, but the thing is, when 50% of all people do exactly the same, it simply smells after carelessness and false understanding of what is called shaprness.
Especially when this is achieved not with the camera/lens but using additional means afterwards, it manifests one question: Can you do that with the camera too? Or what is the sense of oversharpening if focussing alone isn't done exactly? Is it for introducing some hypothetical "quality" which never has been the result of photographic ability? To me this is a fake, and fake of bad taste too.
While I presented real arguments, Fabio, you just say you like it sharp. I already *prooved* to you that this doesn't have anything to do with sharpness. It has to do with the typical blind enthousiasm that the digital age has brought to the rather clueless wannabes, and of which a small demonstration is also attached. The right "curve" is overshapened beyond recognition since it is no curve anymore at all! It is a sequence of horizontal and vertical pieces that do not grasp the fact, that on real world there is not only horizontal and vertical as it happens on the monitor. There is a manifold of all directions inbetween, which have all exactly the same "right" to be.
Now, if we extrapolate your wish for what you call "sharpness" to the endth degree, we end up with a cheap zig-zag representation of the world, which is not the result of photography but rather the result of a too automatic, "conditionless" belief in all software companies that tell us what sharpness is.
But the real top of the arts is how to generate a natural looking sharpness not by digitizing mercilessly, but through an adequate amount of dithering-like techniques and algorithms especially on contours and edges that are *not* horizontal or vertical. To sharpen something beyond recognition is piece of cake. Anybody can do that. To recognize when enough is enough is the finer state on our way to develop a more careful look. And to do all that without such additional fakes, when it comes to trees and the like, well... this is photography and skill.
So you choose.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:81109} 8/12/2008
|
but I want it sharp! :))
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/9/2008
|
The monitor deosn't have to do anything at all with this, Fabio. Still, just for the case, I re-proved it and its calibration is exact.
But any monitor in any calibration will show exactly the same problems. Look for example at the zig-zags on the "wrinkles" of the tree. (Marked up two of them with red.) This is one of the many completely visible phenomena of sharpening and sharpening and sharpening beyond regognition.
Another problem. Look at the spots inside the blue mark. (Also magnified for a better view.) You yee what happened? The hard white halos around them are the typical result of software trying to add sharpness by also raising the contrast of contours, which includes adding such a halo of a light color in case of dark contours. (Actually the added halo is more or less the contour's complementary color.) This is why the texture looks like "hard sand" there. A reasonably sharp focus would never show such a behavior. The magnification of such an area would rather exhibit the typical dithering behavior - i.e. the contour's sharp and still smooth look is assured by using a range of different tones inside the narrow range of a contour. These are things that anybody doing photography should immediately see.
In general, oversharpening other images (like your series of walls etc) can also aceepted as a stylistic element. But on such images like this one, and especially when some "insatiable appetite for more and more sharpness at the cost of anything" is immediately recongnizable, it only shows, if anything, that we are about to surpass any possible limit as we cheerfully (and carelessly) take the way toward a digitally "enhanced" word that lacks any of the finer moments of taste. Much like eating more and stronger chemical additives because we can no more taste the fine aroma of normal stawberries. (And we say they are "dull".)
Sharpness is not something that should rich infinity at any cost, Fabio!
Cheers!
Nick
|
Marked up image for "sharpness" debatte |
|
|
|
|
Fabio Keiner
{K:81109} 8/8/2008
|
maybe it's your display/monitor, nick!? I cannot see it in that way oversharpened (before it was rather dull:))
many thnx for your observation and criticism!
|
|
|
|
Verena Rentrop
{K:15233} 8/5/2008
|
the title...gave me a really good laugh
take care
Verena
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Karagiaouroglou
{K:127263} 8/5/2008
|
Very good lightand toning range, and the subject was really enhanced by the composition, which remains rather simple and in some sense also silent. It makes a dense atmosphere.
But, Fabio, the oversharpening is really too much. This is no more "good details", this is a mixture of sand corns with digital salad. That's too much, way too much here! Look at the texture of the wood surface. Is there any tree with tiny spots with rectangular corners on its surface? That wood has the same texture like cast iron now.
Cheers!
Nick
|
|
|
|
Ania Blazejewska
{K:23981} 7/31/2008
|
excellent capture, beautiful textute and b&w tones
congrats,
ania
|
|
|
|
|
Hussam AL_ Khoder
{K:79545} 7/30/2008
|
P
E
R
F
E
C
T
|
|
|
|
Peter De Rycke
{K:41212} 7/30/2008
|
How well seen and photographed !!.. the textures and tones on this (old?) platanus look fantastic !!
|
|
|
|
RC. Dany
{K:64104} 7/30/2008
|
Realmente,parece un vientre de una embarazada.
magnifica captura Fabio.
besos anne...
|
|
0 
