Hello to Each and All :)

 

I've been squatting this site for quite some time now and I'm absolutely "blown away" by quite a number of images.

Now here is my question. How on earth do you technically get such sharp, high definition images?

Any help about this particular subject would be more than appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Dave aka Not Lost in France.

A good lens, a good sensor, and a good sharpener technique or software. I personally love Nik Output Sharpener, which now belongs to Google.

 

P.S. And enough light for your camera too. Enough to accurately focus (under, I guess f/16) and enough to avoid noise. A tripod when there no enough light.

 

Hello Anna,

Thanks for the reply I have a Sony Alpha 700 and a Maxxum 28-135 Minolta F4 Perma that is my everyday walkaround lens, heavy, but I love it and all the right software but I still haven't managed to achieve what I see here on X1.

Still with practice I'll probably get there :)

Thanks again,

Dave.

I would go as far to say use a tripod all the time, even in good light. The extra stability will always help, especially with higher resolution sensors.

 

Would you upload your image that is not sharp enough for you together with its EXIF data? Maybe you could get some additional advice then.

 

This is certainly true for landscapes, macros, architecture, and heavy lenses (the heavier the lens the more unstable the grip is). You could can also learn breathing and holding techniques for extra stability when there is no tripod.

 

I'd say, that tripod is rarely needed for street photography, since you want to be mobile and inconspicuous. I would also say that there is no need in extra sharpness for street pictures anyway. Some people take studio/flash portraits with a tripod but I personally find it not needed for most portraits and in my case a tripod could prevent my fast reaction to the model's or client's expression, or even would prevent a good emotional rapport with them, especially with regular folks.

 

Anna

Hi

 

As you referr to a technical result and outcome (of course, the photographer makes the image and composes and exposes and I for my part am not as interested in technical perfect shots, but mood and atmosphere):

 

I would suggest to test around with some different brands and lenses.

I once too owned a Sony a 700 (coming from Minolta) I switched to Nikon FullFrame and never regret that. I know several excellent Photogrpahers doing the same and don't know even one, who changed from Canon or Nikon to Sony.

 

Even more important is the lens. You need the base (raw) to be able to edit the outcome in a "perfect" way.

 

Christoph

Hi Dave,

 

Your pictures look perfectly sharp to me... albeit all having a very small depth of field. Just a wild guess: are you sure what seems "not sharp" to you is not just out of focus?

I gotta agree with Paco on this sharpness issue...most of your work is of the macro variety which, by it's very nature has a limited depth of field.

My own macro stuff have been accomplished by using a "photo-stacking" technique which will increase that DOF.

Your fly, as a example, has legs that are OOF, that could be remedied by utilizing the stacking method.

I have to note, Christoph, that there seems to be a larger and larger population of photographers that I know who are switching from Canon and Nikon to the Sony system in the past few months.... apparently the Sony a7R is being compared to a medium format!

 

Other than that, I'd agree that a tripod is usually one of the best ways to give yourself a chance of having a sharp image, however you also need to make sure that your focus is right too.

 

Hi Mel

 

You are right about some switching to the Sony a7R, the one problem is it has few available lenses. I did purchase one to use with my Leica Lenses, did fine with 50 and above but didn't work out with wide angle. Not the Sony Problem, they just a different design. Also the few AF they have do not focus fast due to the contrast detection system.

 

The one Sony that has to be seen to believe is he RX1 .... but its a fixed lens 35mm , will put it in quality right up to the M with a 35 Summilux.

 

Agree with Chirs and can't imagine a better camera than the D800e Nikon and now the new D810 is on they way :) Just got an image of a Night Heron with a fly on its bill !!!! .. they fly is sharp. Used the new 80-400G VR and the D800e on crop factor mode.

 

_____________

 

Dave the best thing to do is compare on your own, if you have a chance to rent or borrow a D800e with prime lenses would give it a try. I try staying away from zooms. For birds and wildlife can't go wrong with 300 2.8 and 500 f4 For street use if I'm not using the leica (almost never) the 24 1.4 35 1.4 50 1.4 85 1.4 I know fix focal lenses are not as convenient but feel you will work out best at the end.

al

Can't add much without knowing what type of photography, is it only for macro outdoors or under controlled indoor environment? Architecture, nature or street ? Or just a general question ?

 

Also the higher the megapixel count on a camera the more critical the quality of the lens becomes as well as the photographer's technique.

Hi Alfred, the people I know and have heard of are all using their existing lenses with adaptors.

 

Sorry for getting off topic, I'll leave it here.

 

Hi Mel

 

If you are talking about the Sony, yes you are right. All SLR lenses work perfectly for the Sony, only the Leica or Voigtlander will not. Leica sensors are built different, shorter cones in the sensor since the light will be coming from a steep angle. With 35 and wider, you will get purple fringing and loose sharpness in the corners. Only the Tri-Elmar will work perfectly and that is a new design.

 

btw there is a fix for the problem of purple fringing, Adobe has a plug in called flat field converter. Just need to shoot one reference image and will work nicely. Have one Voigtlander 12mm, used in the M, use once in a while, need to run every image through the filter.

 

al

Good quality lens and the right technique. That is all!

Hi Al, thanks for the hint about the purple fringing filter!

 

Robert, yes, you're absolutely correct!

Regarding sharpness - this being already a somewhat dated subject - check out this link. It is written by a member, who also has an informative website:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/unsharp.htm

 

Good Light, one and all!

 

Hi Mel,

 

no doubt, Sony is a brand, many photographers still would love to like.

 

A digital finder for me is bit of an issue.

 

But i would love to see sony come back into serious quality cams.

 

best

 

Christoph

 

It's a 2006 article. It must be outdated in many respects. Unless you are sure you can separate outdated points from still valid ones, AND know what's new on the market since 2006, I would not use this article.

 

jep

 

Want something more recent? Look at this AND actually read it.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm

 

It is s commercial site and I do not necessarily endorse it. Informative, nevertheless!

 

A bit more recent :-) . I think what Ken does not mention is that sharpness is more important for some genres and less important for other. And that is important. But he does say a lot of non-trivial and useful stuff, true.

Sharpness and detailing (does such word exist? LOL) are result of many factors:

shutter speed, ISO value, tripod, post-processing technique, sharpening technique, crop, noise reduction, etc...

In post-processing field you could try details extractor software, but be aware of their damage to the image, so the usage should be limited and proportional.

Also, increasing midtones would help (it's what clarity option does in ACR or Lightroom).

 

Honestly, I don't feel he is really addressing fine-art photography though he does mention artists in his section called "Who Cares?". His tone is very much, "don't stress about it." In our work, some genres and styles absolutely demand top quality sharpness at all points of the frame. It's case by case i suppose.

Anal retentive acuity is a description that is applicable to my work...to the degree that if my images fail to exhibit crystal clarity at 100%, they're trashed.

If the prints fail to withstand nose-length viewing distance, they aren't hung. My gear is such that it will cough out that quality, sans user error.

I demand that level of sharpness quality for the simple reason that I am completely devoid of "artistic vision" and, I would, in a heartbeat, trade that clarity for an ounce of "artistic vision".

 

Ken does make some good points but have seen him make others that have to question, still overall good and informative.

 

For my non-nature work, have used Leica all my life and find those lenses hard to beat. My current favorite combination, Summilux-M 35mm f/1.4 ASPH FLE and APO-Summicron-M 75mm f/2.0 ASPH. Just take those two out most of the time.

For wildlife the Nikon super tele lenses are impressive.

 

I look at sharpness like a chain, as good as its weakest link .... and there are lots of links involved !!!

al

 

Hi Chris

 

Agree on the EVF not being up to the DSLRs Actually they are improving to the point what will be as good. My Leica EVF for the M is just adequate and don't use it much at all. Looked through the new Leica T and the finder is impressive. Can only imagine what will be around in a couple of years.

 

Without a mirror, AF seems to be the biggest problem since its based on contrast and is not up to the phase detection of the DSLRs

 

al

Hi Al,

my eyes don't become better with the years, :-)

hopefully they develop the EVFs soon and beat the actual ones :-)