We only got into this rabbit-hole after somebody denied that keeping contrast a constant when assessing the sharpness of enlarging-lenses would be a prerequisite to come to a valid conclusion.
We only got into this rabbit-hole after somebody denied that keeping contrast a constant when assessing the sharpness of enlarging-lenses would be a prerequisite to come to a valid conclusion.
True, but the problem surrounding the use of the term "sharpness" is a more general one.
Ctein has some useful observations about "sharpness" in chapter one of his book "Post Exposure": https://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf
Sharp is sharp. It is not a matter of perception. Resolution, size and contrast can give the illusion of sharpness, but it does not enhance or produce real sharpness.
Sigh. Yes it IS often a matter of perception. All other things being equal a contrastier print will APPEAR subjectively sharper. It just does - because it makes boundary areas between light and dark areas differ more.
No one ever said it changes "real sharpness." You basically disagreed with me, then explained why you agreed.
Lenses. Not prints. If the grain in a print is sharp but the image isn't, no amount of contrast will make it sharp. The "perception of sharpness" is not sharpness.
True, but the problem surrounding the use of the term "sharpness" is a more general one.
Ctein has some useful observations about "sharpness" in chapter one of his book "Post Exposure": https://ctein.com/PostExposure2ndIllustrated.pdf