Lens Not Sharp

Just wanted to repeat that point.  I've seen a lot of posts, not here specifically but elsewhere, where someone just bought their first dSLR having upgraded from a point and shoot and are disappointed with the softness.  Part of the control that a less automatic camera gives you is the amount of sharpening you do.  Point & shoot images by default are highly sharpened in camera so it seems that people tend to expect that level of sharpness from all digital images. 

One of the lessons that took me longer than I'd like to admit to learn is to resize images to the final size before sharpening.  I've put way too many images online that I sharpened the full resolution file before resizing down to web sized. 

I am lazy about that in posts here on the forum, but I have started sharpening images for my website.  I let my software resize the images and create the gallery in html, then I go into the folder and sharpen all images and save before transfering them to the web.  It took me a long time to figure that out.

I agree with Mike, Thanks Rob!! Great information.

I remember showing a 16x20 print of a red tail hawk to my friend who owns a camera store, I was complaining that it wasn't as sharp as I felt it should have been.

His reply.

"You shoot a bird 100yards away with a 500mm lens hand held, blow it up to 16x20 and complain its not sharp enough?

Most photographers couldn't keep the bird in the viewfinder under those conditions, you may be good but you're not that good. Use the monopod you bought from me a year ago and shut up about sharp... "

he was right.

only at super fast shutter speeds do I not use the monopod now.

laugh all you want, one day it'll be too windy and you'll be looking around for something to lean against... You'll remember my dog leash trick and thank me.... [grin]

If Rob thinks his solution is not so technical, wait till you get a load of my formula:

Some like it hot, some like it cold and some like it in the pot 9 days old!  Yup, sharpness is a matter of taste, preference and relativity.  Once I know what a lens will do in actual use, I assign a “personality” to it that goes beyond resolution tests or specifications.  In many cases theses technical statistics don’t relate to the aesthetics that certain lenses will deliver. 

There are many instances where extreme sharpness and/or contrast are detrimental to an image as in certain styles of portraiture.  Oftentimes I will select a soft focus lens that has deliberate and controllable “defects” built in to its design.  Theses defects, known as optical aberrations impart a soft or ethereal mood in portraits or even landscape photography.  I also have sharp lenses that are just a little softer working that are ideal for portraiture but may not be applicable to commercial work or macro photography.  I have some lenses that are un-sympathetically acute and would just about show the bacteria on someone’s face let alone blemishes and unwanted lines and wrinkles- great for portrait studies of old grizzly men but not exactly what the doctor would order for the ladies and even some of the more vein gents.

It is as simple as selecting the right tool for the right job- it’s not a good idea to use your expensive locking pliers for a hammer nor is it wise to use your high quality screwdrivers as chisels.

I have a 47mm Super Angulon (f/8) wide angle lens fitted to a specially designed Brooks wide angle camera.  That thing is 40 years old and it is the sharpest lens I have ever seen in my life.  I have to go back to film to use it but for architectural work it is absolutely incredible.  I was in my regular dealer’s shop and he had a beaten up old Nikon 85 mm lens in a bargain bin- it was priced at $25.  When I showed some interest in it, a being such a stead customer, the dealer intimated to me that it had been dropped in a lake and never serviced and if I wanted it for use as a paperweight I could have it for free.  I took him up on his offer- we had a good laugh.  When I got it back to my studio, I observed that mould had attacked the lens coatings and it looked pretty bad but just for fun, I stuck it on my camera.  I made a few portraits of the kids and was totally astounded by the results.  The images were tack sharp but there was just a slight “veil” of softness- just enough to break up the image ever so delicately!  I have been using that thing for 20 years- I can’t believe it.  I never tried to get it cleaned or lubricated, I am sure if anyone took it apart the shutter blades and the aperture would most likely disintegrate. 

A few years ago, I had a government contract to photograph various airport facilities around Canada.  There were a lot of control towers to be photographed and because of their location in proximity to the runways and terminal areas; I needed a very sharp telephoto lens.  I purchased a 500mm APO Tele-Tessar for my Hasselblad. What with the price of that thing, I was allowed to test the lens before finalizing the purchase so I drove out to the airport and made some test shots.  When I got the film back from the lab, I was horrified- the apparent resolution just sucked- all $6,000 worth!  When I examined the transparencies under 10X magnification I saw the camera movement blur.  Although the camera was mounted on a heavy Gitzo tripod and was well isolated to prevent vibrations from the ground, there might have been some wind or perhaps I had forgotten to lock up the mirror or something???  This lens is quite long and heavy and in order to maintain a good center of gravity it has to be mounted via its own tripod socket so the camera hangs off the back of the lens.  I went back to the location but this time I secured the camera body, by way of a Manfrotto magic arm, to one of the tripod legs, locked up the mirror, and squeezed the cable release very gently as I made the exposure.  Well, the images were tack sharp, I could see the fastening on the control tower windows from hundred of feet away.

The funny thing that I realized in retrospect is that there I was with state of the art equipment and did not observe some of the very rudimentary precautions such as keeping the camera steady, especially with telephoto lenses.  So, as Rob said, much of the sharpness is dependent on good technique. 

I almost seems, especially if one is a bit paranoid, that there are so many forces out there to steal sharpness form out pictures. Here’s a partial list; cheap filters, camera shake, mirror slap, external vibration, haze or air pollution, subject movement, condensation forming on internal or external lens elements, dirty lenses or digital sensors, hard shutter release techniques, smoke filled reception rooms and poor focusing technique (even with auto-focus systems) .  The funny part is that none of theses gremlins have anything to do with intrinsic lens design or performance or mechanical issues in the lenses themselves. 

As for my experience with digital gear is that when proper technique is applied, very little post production sharpening is really all that necessary- just a little dab ‘ill do ya! 

 :biggrin:Ed   

Rob, it's terrible that you have to live in such sparse surroundings

Hey Rob!  Good luck down there!  You are not missing much up here in terms of the weather- all record braking snow and ice stats. The weather forecast just came over the TV- more snow on the way! Wind chill -17 here in Ottawa. 

Please post some great tropical images soon- they will cheer me up    Great to hear from you.

Best regards,  Ed