post a super sharp image in this thread

removed account4 · Nov 23, 2015

apug is full of a variety of people, some like soft, some like sharp
and others aspire to make sharp but are making soft

often times people help others to reach their desired sharpness by giving instructions in threads
by posting information but no samples of sharpness. people compare fstops in a variety of formats
lens designs, developers and developing methods ... sure, i know one can go to other sites on the webster
and search lens and developer combinations and whatnot to see what's what ... but since this is apug
maybe we should have some sort of a thread where people post their uber-sharp image and just say what
lens and developer/developing method was used. we all know this is the internet, and it is a digital facsimile and we can
hopefully trust that someone didn't futz with PS or some other editing software to achieve their sharpness.
please do not post airforce test charts and please keep this thread civil.

RobC · Nov 23, 2015

Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. – Henri Cartier Bresson

removed account4 · Nov 23, 2015

rob c,

it might be a bourgeois concept but it is still a goal
a lot of people aspire to conquer ( with your help even ! )

why don' t you post a sharp photograph ? it doesn't need to be gigantic ...
( and you don't need to be a subscriber ... and if you want you can go into your uploads manager and delete it )

RobC · Nov 23, 2015

because to scan it will unsharpen it and you don't want sharpened images.

removed account4 · Nov 23, 2015

whether or not one has to sharpen the scan to make it look
like the original, it still shows the sharp image that one
has, and shows others what lens and film processing style
was used to get that result.

it is sad that people who give instructions
and tell others know how to do things
( like get sharp images )
don't ever show samples of their own work
that exemplifies what they show others to do.

Sirius Glass · Nov 23, 2015

RobC said:
because to scan it will unsharpen it and you don't want sharpened images.

What is this dastardly thing called "scan" of which you speak? Is it a social disease?

Ko.Fe. · Nov 23, 2015

I bet I'll get very sharp image on 100 Delta film with Canon 100L macro lens after developing it in fine grain developer. But it is going to look kind of strange for me. As strange as board messages without capital letters.

RobC · Nov 23, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
What is this dastardly thing called "scan" of which you speak? Is it a social disease?

Yoda, it is a force from the light side.

DannL. · Nov 23, 2015

At some magnification all images eventually fall apart. So, "sharpness" is relative to magnification (or your ability to see). I once purchased a print signed by Cole Weston, of an image created by his father. I was pleased as punch, until I got home and examined the print with a loupe. To me the print looked sharp and just dandy at a normal viewing distance, but up close you could easily see the dots from the offset printing process. There was nothing sharp about the print. If I had had my reading glasses with me when I found the print, I would have never purchased it, even though Cole had actually signed it.

Vonder · Nov 23, 2015

My latest plague is unsharp images from my Pentax 645. I am unable to contribute to this thread.

DREW WILEY · Nov 23, 2015

Super-sharp images inherently cannot be posted on the web. It's like trying to peel a potato with a sledgehammer. Mush, splat, mess. If you
want to see sharp images you need to be nose to nose with something like a 30X40 inch Cibachrome printed from 8x10.

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 23, 2015

DREW WILEY said:
Super-sharp images inherently cannot be posted on the web. It's like trying to peel a potato with a sledgehammer. Mush, splat, mess. If you
want to see sharp images you need to be nose to nose with something like a 30X40 inch Cibachrome printed from 8x10.

So what you're saying, Drew, is that all this blathering on on APUG (and any other website, really) about sharpness is really just an excuse for public verbal masturbation?

Sirius Glass · Nov 23, 2015

TheFlyingCamera said:
So what you're saying, Drew, is that all this blathering on on APUG (and any other website, really) about sharpness is really just an excuse for public verbal masturbation?

In polite terms, you used to best terminology.

Hatchetman · Nov 23, 2015

OK, just to play along, this is a sharp photo from my pre-war Kodak Bantam Special:

5x7 Print by Rob F, on Flickr

Below is a crop:

Crop by Rob F, on Flickr

RobC · Nov 23, 2015

I wanna know how he's going to know the difference in scanner resolution (spi), and downsizing algorythm after the scan, whether scanner was using its own sharpening or dust removal and few other things I haven't considered. Oh, which actual scanner as not all scanners are equal. Oh and the format of the neg or print being scanned and whether its a print scan or a neg scan.

i.e. it's a pointless test which proves absolutely bugger all since you can't use it for any kind of comparative test that would be meaningful.

TheFlyingCamera · Nov 23, 2015

Here's an example of something I think is pretty sharp:

Original negative: Kodak Tri-X, developed in Pyrocat HD.
Camera/Lens: Rolleiflex, Zeiss Planar 80mm f2.8
Scanner/Software: Epson V750, Silverfast Ai Studio 8.x, Photoshop CS5.1, MacOS.

Use that as you will to detect whatever biases that will help you with. Minimal sharpening to compensate for scanning loss was applied.

removed account4 · Nov 23, 2015

hatchetman and scott

thank you !

Mike Crawford · Nov 23, 2015

Does this Joe Jackson album cover shot by Brian Griffin count?

RobC · Nov 23, 2015

Mike Crawford said:
Does this Joe Jackson album cover shot by Brian Griffin count?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wRHBLwpASw

pbromaghin · Nov 23, 2015

RobC said:
I wanna know how he's going to know the difference in scanner resolution (spi), and downsizing algorythm after the scan, whether scanner was using its own sharpening or dust removal and few other things I haven't considered. Oh, which actual scanner as not all scanners are equal. Oh and the format of the neg or print being scanned and whether its a print scan or a neg scan.

i.e. it's a pointless test which proves absolutely bugger all since you can't use it for any kind of comparative test that would be meaningful.

Ummm. Who said it was a test?

Ian Grant · Nov 23, 2015

RobC said:
I wanna know how he's going to know the difference in scanner resolution (spi), and downsizing algorythm after the scan, whether scanner was using its own sharpening or dust removal and few other things I haven't considered. Oh, which actual scanner as not all scanners are equal. Oh and the format of the neg or print being scanned and whether its a print scan or a neg scan.

i.e. it's a pointless test which proves absolutely bugger all since you can't use it for any kind of comparative test that would be meaningful.

John's asking people to post images where sharpness is most important to them, that's not a test. We have to live with the facts that scans, resizing etc makes a difference.

A few years ago I posted an extremely sharp image on this forum, I think shot on EFKE 25 but with a 10x8 camera, it doesn't really work well as a small resized image from a scan mainly because it contains a lot of very fine detail and the subject matter a lead silver mine site is full of mid greys.

Ian

bdial · Nov 23, 2015

Image resolution and sharpness are not the same thing. Information may be removed by limiting the resolution for display on a typical monitor, and there are limits to the image sharpness that can be shown when that is done, but sharp is still sharp.
And for scanning, a sharp scan of a soft image is still soft and it will stay that way, similarly, a soft scan of a sharp image is still sharper too look at than a similar scan of a soft image.

Anyway, here's are a couple of my candidates;

MattKing · Nov 23, 2015

I take John's purpose in this thread to be related to the "Photographic Aesthetics" part of the reason for this sub-forum.

And "sharp" is an aesthetic choice.

I'm going to post this image, but if my past experience is repeated, sharpness will suffer from the upload. So I'll try two differently sized versions:

Richard S. (rich815) · Nov 23, 2015

Here's a few of my sharper photographs...

Theo Sulphate · Nov 23, 2015

Hatchetman said:
OK, just to play along, this is a sharp photo from my pre-war Kodak Bantam Special:

5x7 Print by Rob F, on Flickr

I really like that bridge-lift photo. Very reminiscent of Feininger. It is sharp, but that's not what makes the photo.

post a super sharp image in this thread

removed account4

RobC

removed account4

RobC

removed account4

Sirius Glass

Ko.Fe.

RobC

DannL.

Vonder

DREW WILEY

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

Sirius Glass

Hatchetman

RobC

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

removed account4

Mike Crawford

Attachments

RobC

pbromaghin

Ian Grant

bdial

Attachments

MattKing

Moderator

Attachments

Richard S. (rich815)

Theo Sulphate

post a super sharp image in this thread

Membership Council

Membership Council

Attachments

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency