"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:57:48 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Reginald P. Smithers III" [email protected] wrote in
message ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:24:44 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
[email protected] wrote:

John H. wrote:
This picture was taken from about six feet away. In looking
at the EXIF data, I noticed that the 'sharpness' was set at 'soft'.
I've
got to check into that. Maybe that's part of my problem.
All I have to say is "Duuuuhhhhhh".
I appreciate your suggestions.

Give me a break! I spent 30 years with a Canon FTQL. I didn't have to
be
a
damn IT professional to take a picture.

LOL, JohnH, I am teasing you. If you look at my photos, I have a
tendency
to over sharpen them.

Then stop over sharpening them. It's a nasty effect. Nobody likes the
results. Nobody.

Not true.

Most of the time, you can't tell if an image has been sharpened or
not. A lot of digital images have been "sharpened" if only because
the camera shot in RAW and post processed. A a lot of new digital
photographers make their mistake, is in believing that sharpening
fixes focus issues. That's not true.

The technical definition of sharpness is less than transparent.
Sharpness is determined by two factors: resolution and acutance.

Resolution is sharpness - as in resolving fine detail - as measured in
line pairs per millimeter LP/mm. The more LP/mm that a lens can
resolve, the greater the resolution of the lens resulting in varying
levels of detail. Resolution is determined by the camera and lens.

What we are really talking about is acutance - the contrast of
adjacent pixels. The eye/brain interface interpret light pixels lying
next to dark pixels as an edge. The quicker the transition the
sharper edges. So if it is a rapid decrease, it's sharp. A not rapid
decrease, it's fuzzy.

Sharpness has nothing to do with resolution or detail. It has
everything to do with contrast along edges. So in reality, sharpening
has to do with acuteness and not with resolution.

With John's image, he had the masking filter on - whcih is fine, but
that's what caused a lot of the problems with the flash - as you can
see in the image of his Grandson. Shooting in RAW takes out the
masking filter which increases acuteness - I guarantee that image
would have been much better if shot in RAW and processed out to .jpg.


Maybe the only ones I've noticed were sharpened excessively using software
in the computer. The edges look absurdly fake, and they're definitely
objectionable.