If a Photo Is Not Tack Sharp, Is It Junk?

[nmccamy]

Yes, of course composition, lighting, subject interest, etc, all play an important role in creating a great image. I wanted to avoid all of that and simply focus on sharpness.

 

[cbg]

Nick, agreed, but just focus on sharpness, is it possible for there to be varying degrees of "tack sharp"? For example, (and this is only for printed images), if I am only going to print to 5x7, I think that I can get away with an image that is a little less sharp than one than I would need to print at say 16x20 or larger simply because the smaller image will mask a little of the not being tack sharp.

Colin

 

[nmccamy]

Colin,

If I am printing a 5 x 7, I convert my large unsharpened image to 5 x 7, then sharpen it. I never sharpen a large image, then convert it to a smaller image. Just my preference. I use Photoshop and never save a psd with sharpening applied.

 

[cbg]

I do most of my work in Lightroom, but do basically the same thing, in that I sharpen after I have cropped to the size that I want. I think the point I was trying to make was that I can get away with a softer image for a 5x7 that I can for a larger print simply because of the smaller print size. Other than that, I think we agree that tack sharp is what we are all striving to achieve in out images.

Colin
.

 

[nmccamy]

It depends on your vision. I have strong myopia and my glasses stink at close distances. But if I take my glasses off, I can resolve very closely, like having a magnifying glass.

Obviously there will be a point where your vision cannot discern any more details. I have no idea where that point is.

I use a much stronger sharpening for prints than I do if the image will be displayed on a monitor.

 

[nmccamy]

Colin,

I noticed you are from Maryland. I use to live in Garrett Park, then moved to Potomac. I could never live there again, the cost of living is astronomical! My wife and I are thinking about Idaho.

 

[cbg]

Nick,

I agree that eyesight, etc play into our perception of what is sharp an some can resolve better than others.

I'm here (DC area) thanks to the USAF many years ago. I agree about the cost of living, especially now that I am retired. Interesting you mentioned Idaho, I was born there (Pocatello, southeastern ID) and still have family there.

Colin

 

[nmccamy]

Colin,

Wow, you were born there! Very interesting! My wife and I have never been to Idaho, but have seen tons of photographs. We are both nature lovers and enjoy a rustic lifestyle. We have no idea what part of Idaho we want to live because we don't know the area. We prefer rural over city. Any tips on areas we should look at, or avoid?

 

[RON_RIP]

Well I don't always want tack sharp. in some of my images I strive for a painterly approach. Almost but not quite Impressionism. But I am a very live and let live kind of a person. So what ever pleases you plumb tickles me to death.

 

[clarnibass]

Answering the question in the title of the thread so generally, I'd say no (i.e. it's not necessarily junk if it's not tack sharp). Of course there are exceptions.

One of my favorite photos has some back focus. I was trying to take a photo of a kid running in a very dark room, with a f/1.4 lens wide open, and manually focusing (the lens didn't have AF), at the same time capturing him with some paper falling from the ceiling. The photo could have been better and I did get some photos without back or front focus, but that one photo was far better than anything else because it was the best moment and frame.