I understand what you're asking. My point is that even if I scanned 8x10 contact prints and then reduce them to 92 dpi, the monitor's sole resolution, the point of displaying the image as a sharp image is negated. I can use my imagination that it's a sharp print. Which is what I am doing now. I relate this to making a plate of homemade fettuccine, emailing a picture of it to someone, and then asking them if they too find it delicious. Computer monitors are good, but their not that good.
Attractive image, Rob, but none of these postings illustrate anything about sharpness. Hype the contrast and edge effect a bit and people have something which simulates sharpness for web purposes, but it's all faux unless web presentation itself is the final objective. Nor does highly magnifying part of a scan realize the objective. Printing paper might see things differently (this is APUG, after all). Even for casual purposes, I'd trust a light box and magnifier long before I'd trust any web posting. Of course, this is sometimes the best we can do over distance, so I understand the logistical limitations. Now Rich is a little different story, because I'll probably stumble into him some day locally.
All of the images posted thus far look like digital image files displayed on a 92 dpi monitor to me. I'm not see this "sharpness" that everyone is talking about. With my reading glasses on, I can make out the RBG color pixels of the monitor screen. Is that what determines the sharpness of these images . . . the size of the RGB color pixels and sub-pixels?
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.
Here's one that juxtaposes sharp and blurry:
Rolleiflex 2.8E, Kodak Ektar 100
If it is on the web it is not a photograph. A photograph is a chemical print on single weight or double weight paper that you can hold in your hands. It must be a photograph to be sharp, so see the previous sentence to understand why the posted images are not sharp.
So then daguerreotypes, tintypes, ambrotypes, liquid emulsions on wood, fabric, or stone are not photographs?
So then daguerreotypes, tintypes, ambrotypes, liquid emulsions on wood, fabric, or stone are not photographs?
Apparently not, if you are sirius
I do love the sharpness of the first generation images like Dags and tintypes though.
Daguerreotype and tin types are great and one can hold them in their hands. D stuff, not so much especially when displayed on a screen which by its nature cannot show sharp details no matter how much one wants to see it, siriusly!
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.
sharpness is a fuzzy concept
Yoda, it is a force from the light side.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?