Pick the Sharpest Photo

[Felisek]

These are almost full sensor images scaled down to 1024 pixels, so I wouldn't expect much difference between them. I suppose the lens (even a cheap one) is sharper than the pixel size at any aperture, when image is reduced to just 1024 pixels. I would expect to see perceptible differences while looking at original pixels, e.g., at 100% crops.

However, at 1024 pixels and 300 dpi you wouldn't get a print larger than about 3.5" without losing quality. So, essentially, what you are showing is that the lens diffraction cannot be seen on a tiny 3.5-inch print.

 

[wornish]

I found myself looking at the aperture setting for each one and I am sure that affected my judgement.
There isn't a great deal of difference between any of them especially at this crop size. As I had to choose I chose 6.
Be interested to see a 100% crop of the same section of each one to get an idea of what a large print might look like.

 

[Eyelight]

I saved all six to my desktop and then watched them maximized. That way I could flip between two fast and I deleted the one that look less sharp and then checked the survivor against the next.

At full size 1 and 6 looked sharpest to me even while knowing that the file size of three indicated it must contain more detail or at least more diverse pixels.

Perception is a funny thing. It makes me wonder if the same shot against a different colored background would also influence perceived sharpness.

Perception is all we have and it will absolutely change with any change in viewing conditions.

These are almost full sensor images scaled down to 1024 pixels, so I wouldn't expect much difference between them. I suppose the lens (even a cheap one) is sharper than the pixel size at any aperture, when image is reduced to just 1024 pixels. I would expect to see perceptible differences while looking at original pixels, e.g., at 100% crops.

However, at 1024 pixels and 300 dpi you wouldn't get a print larger than about 3.5" without losing quality. So, essentially, what you are showing is that the lens diffraction cannot be seen on a tiny 3.5-inch print.

Not exactly. The crop was to 3398 pixels wide so 56% of the original 6016 pixels. Depending on how the images were viewed, it could easily mimic 8 X 10 or larger.

The purpose was to see which image pickers picked as the sharpest and the results more or less bore out what would be expected if one thought it out.

Would have been better to have had 100 sets of eyes as 18 is a bit small of a sampling.

 

[Eyelight]

I found myself looking at the aperture setting for each one and I am sure that affected my judgement.
There isn't a great deal of difference between any of them especially at this crop size. As I had to choose I chose 6.
Be interested to see a 100% crop of the same section of each one to get an idea of what a large print might look like.

The aperture settings were not there for the first 18 votes, the purpose of which was not to influence the picking just as you noted.

 

[Stoshowicz]

Perception is all we have and it will absolutely change with any change in viewing conditions.



Not exactly. The crop was to 3398 pixels wide so 56% of the original 6016 pixels. Depending on how the images were viewed, it could easily mimic 8 X 10 or larger.

The purpose was to see which image pickers picked as the sharpest and the results more or less bore out what would be expected if one thought it out.

Would have been better to have had 100 sets of eyes as 18 is a bit small of a sampling.

I don't know whats right as far as pixel count goes, but the character of the subject and its presentation , made it a difficult call for me , certain parts are softer than others and I have no real expectation that any particular edge is supposed to be a hard line , or a rounded one. Since the grain of the wood might APPROPRIATELY be a bit rounded and soft , or the grain could be unintentionally soft.
Ordinarily, twine is a good choice but it wasn't at the center of the pic. Id be curious to see your results with either an insect or a feather, which have finer details which one can note if its clearly seen or not.
Im thinking I am not saying this clearly ,, but similarly if you took a photo of a painting, I wouldn't really know if the brush strokes were supposed to be soft or if they were being artificially made to look soft.
Yes you may still can get an answer which looked crisper, but seeing that you have a fairly non-unanimous result.. that could be a result influenced by this subject matter.

I'm thinking that normally photosubjects are not flat , and normally all portions are not really in the same plane of focus even if it is flat -since that plane is curved.
With all portions , not actually equally in focus , one may be influenced to perceive sharpness differently.
Like if I blur a background , my bird will look sharper- even though its not.