Pixel peepers/razor sharp eyeballs needed . . . apply within

Discussion in 'Panasonic' started by Jock Elliott, Oct 15, 2013.

  1. Jock Elliott

    Jock Elliott All-Pro

    Jan 3, 2012
    Troy, NY
    Does this photo look sharp to you? Specifically, the tree in the middle?


    If not, why not?

    I am trying to resolve an issue regarding the technical quality of my images.

    Thanks in advance for your help.

    Cheers, Jock
  2. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    On the proviso that I am unaware of how sharp an image from this combination of camera, processing, and uploading medium should be in ideal circumstances:

    I think that the overexposure of the scene means that you have more light kicking around than is ideal and it is affecting the contrast which in turn gives an impression of unsharpness.
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Luke

    Luke Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Nov 11, 2011
    Milwaukee, WI USA
    My first thoughts were exactly what Nic stated. It is not state of the art sharp, and I think the blown out parts of the image detract from the overall sharpness possible. It's hard to say at this size if that tree is the sharpest part of the image, but because of the exposure, some of the foreground elements appear sharper (which is what stuff in the foreground tends to do anyways).

    Knowing you shoot superzooms, I would say that it is sharp. It's hard to make anything look forum-ready tack sharp when the subject is that far away and you're shooting with a small sensor camera.

    I assume the sharpness police will come in at any moment and revoke Nic's and my pixel peeping cards (and I'm fine with that). It's more than sharp enough for a pleasing photo, it's nowhere near sharp enough for a sharpness collector.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Isoterica

    Isoterica Hall of Famer

    Dec 6, 2011
    Agreeing with Nic & Luke here. If you want an image with a glow to it, you've made one, and because of its artfulness, I like it. But also, because of this reverse-vignette (darker outsides), the "perception" of sharpness is diminished with the lack of contrast in the center. That does not mean that you did not shoot a sharp image, it just means that because of the center 'glow', the darker and more contrasty outer edges of the frame "seem" more sharp. If you want us to pixel peep that tree itself, you have to offer a large resolution image but another way of checking it yourself is to tweak contrast in the center, see if the tree becomes more defined, more on par with the rest of the photo.. if it does then you can return it to it's glowy awesomeness and know you took a clean shot-- or keep it contrasty if you prefer. If you can't tweak contrast and bring it out then it is either too overexposed and you've lost that detail or it's just sharp enough. With a zoom there is always the possibility of blur with the tiniest waggle of the lens, even if it is a compact one.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. grebeman

    grebeman Old Codgers Group


    I'm always wary of making judgements on resolution, sharpness and the like of downsized images on the web, they are and always must be compromised by the very downsizing process they have undergone. As you know I've been shooting recently with an FZ200 and I find the images can take some sharpening, but care is required. You haven't told us anything about this image in terms of is it from a raw file or a jpeg, if raw what post processing has been applied to the image particularly in terms of sharpening, if jpeg what value of sharpening has the camera applied before you've even processed the image.

    I'm pleasantly surprised at what such a small sensor camera like the FZ200 can achieve, particularly in good light which applies to your image, but I do find that mid to far distance foliage is particularly revealing of it's limitations.

    With regard to sharpening in Photoshop, I've indicated in another posting my method of sharpening. I convert to lab mode, deselect the a and b channels leaving me only the lightness channel to which I apply the sharpening using unsharp mask Amount 50%, Radius 1, Threshold 0. I might apply this two or even three times, reselect the a and b channels to bring back the colour image and then using the history palette go backwards until I'm happy with the result. I often find that one application is all that an FZ200 image can take, not so with images from bigger sensors. Once satisfied the image is converted back to RGB.

    • Like Like x 1
  6. dalethorn

    dalethorn Guest

    At 1024 x 768 it's not possible to tell anything. Tree leaves put much greater demands on a camera than most subjects, so I'd hesitate to judge sharpness at less than 3600 pixels wide - preferably more.
  7. Lucille

    Lucille Veteran

    Aug 20, 2012
    Hepcat City
    looks soft to my eyes....