At what point is "sharp focus" too sharp?

[gardener]

I know this is somewhat of a loaded question since each one of us has an idea of what looks good in our own minds but since perusing lots of pics on this forum and others (you guys have me hooked), I've found that some pictures almost seem to be composites rather than just a fact that the photographer happened to hit the focus perfectly on picture 'A' as to DOF preferred and focus of the main subject matter. Yes, I know that PS and its many variations can do that and that's an artistic tool to use at your discretion but at what point are perfectly outlined subjects acceptable from both an artistic and photographic point of view, that is... the main subject actually seems to jump out from the rest of the picture instead of just drawing your attention to that main subject with the rest of the pic as the complimentary scene?
I know that we'd typically like to get initial focus as tack sharp as possible but at some point, extremely "sharp" seems to take away from some pictures as a whole rather than improving them.

In a similar vein, at what point is soft focus overused regarding portraiture? A nice effect for certain subjects but at some point, it seems to have become a habit rather than an enhancement device after looking at so many web portrait portfolios...

Am I off track here? Still just trying to learn so opinions are welcome from any point of view...
Thank you,
Steve W

[rwwright]

just a thought. some people are very strong on getting the photo right at the camera and not needing any adjustment later. This is all right, but I would error on the side of getting as much info as possible in the camera and adjusting if required later.

in other words, it cannot be too sharp at the camera. If you dont want it that sharp later, just blur it a little.

I know that is not exactly what you ask. Sometimes if the subject is the only thing that is recognizeable as anything you dont get any perspective as to size or where an item is. You have to make this decision for each photo.

[adam7731]

Originally Posted by gardener

I know this is somewhat of a loaded question since each one of us has an idea of what looks good in our own minds but since perusing lots of pics on this forum and others (you guys have me hooked), I've found that some pictures almost seem to be composites rather than just a fact that the photographer happened to hit the focus perfectly on picture 'A' as to DOF preferred and focus of the main subject matter. Yes, I know that PS and its many variations can do that and that's an artistic tool to use at your discretion but at what point are perfectly outlined subjects acceptable from both an artistic and photographic point of view, that is... the main subject actually seems to jump out from the rest of the picture instead of just drawing your attention to that main subject with the rest of the pic as the complimentary scene?
I know that we'd typically like to get initial focus as tack sharp as possible but at some point, extremely "sharp" seems to take away from some pictures as a whole rather than improving them.

In a similar vein, at what point is soft focus overused regarding portraiture? A nice effect for certain subjects but at some point, it seems to have become a habit rather than an enhancement device after looking at so many web portrait portfolios...

Am I off track here? Still just trying to learn so opinions are welcome from any point of view...
Thank you,
Steve W

steve your so right. That is when it comes down to person shooting and the subject your shooting. I dont know how old you are of if you ever where into fashion but, back in the day you could take a fashion image that wasnt any where near sharp and the Art Director would love it and thus was born the age of fuzz images for fashion. Now it's going the other way everything is sharp.

You have an image with lots of motion in it you want to keep the motion but also keep the sharpness to show your main focous on the image at hand. you will spend lots of time trying find the best of both worlds. I personally believe if you can get through the camera then your working on being a photographer above the rest. to many folks relay on PS to save an image or create and image that wasnt there to start with.

IE http://www.timelinephotographic.com/...vacation/bells
http://www.timelinephotographic.com/.../vacation/band

just a little something for our vacation last week but it goes to answering the question. ONly thing changed was a little color correcting and that's it in PS. I wanted a sharp image on the face and blur to show the action going on. I do like the freedom that PS has given to me if i dont catch it in the camera i can do it in PS but i dont care how good you are PS it still looks better when it's done through the camera.

something else on portaits you might want to remember is that our eyes cant see like the lens. we can see the whole image in total tack sharp focous. a true depth of field for an image my be the ears are out of focoused and the tip of the nose isnt sharp. but the eyes, cheeks and lips are tack. arrange a couple objects on a table and take alook at them and see if you notice the difference in sharpness as you look at each item. You dont have to totally blur the image out either just alittle softness and your more true to life then a total blur.

a_

[gardener]

Thanks to both of you for your comments...
I may have sabotaged my own initial question though in that camera focus in most cases is generally to be desired I would think although the action to be conveyed is certainly a factor. I suppose in this instance though, it may be the post processing that leaves me cold and in that case, it's just a matter of my preferred view rated against someone else's preferred view with neither taking precedence... As examples of things I've seen within the last few days...
*Close up picture of squirrel in the snow and holding a nut in his paws. Great pic, good clear detail of the snowflakes on his coat, his whiskers and fur showing individual detail, bright eyes, etc. Technically I couldn't tell you whether the pic was correct or not but the subject caught my attention, told a story, and essentially gave me an eye to eye view with the squirrel plus made me feel good. I could look at this one a hundred times and not get tired of it...
*Picture of a seal on a rock in the middle of what was obviously a zoo pond. Extremely sharp focus, good small detail on the seal and rock, good color throughout... but it literally looked like the seal had been cut out of another photo with a pair of scissors and pasted onto the rock. Again, technically I can't comment on the pic because all I know is what looks good to me and what doesn't but all in all, the picture almost looked too sharp or possibly even faked... I see no reason why it would have been but that's what my eyes told me at first glance and was my first impression. Nice pic but no wow factor to ever make me want to look at it again.
*Web portfolio of children... Nearly every single pic seemed to have been entirely done in soft focus and gave me the impression that I was peering through a mist and seeing small angels instead of real children. In real life, an order may have consisted of several soft focus shots and others well defined in focus but all I had to look at was the entire portfolio so immediately, my eyes and brain became biased looking for some definition in each one.

Please don't think I'm bagging on anyone because I'm not... it's just that when I look at the critiques offered in the gallery or elsewhere, sometimes I see why that constructive comment was made and other times I don't simply because I liked the pic as it was originally presented. I try to remain open minded as to picture style because each of us has a different idea of what appeals to us as an individual.
Perhaps I'm just overthinking this aspect and should learn to look at what is presented without making distinctions on what are typically small issues within the grand scheme of things...
Oh, and I'll be 60 this year and I flunk out miserably when it comes to fashion anything...
Thanks again
Steve W

[markperez]

I think you answered your own question when you said it was a loaded question. Photography is totally subjective so to answer a question like that is only giving an opinion (as you said already). To say something that is tack sharp is taking away from a photo for you may only add to the photo for someone else.

[stacyreeves]

TOO sharp? I wish I had that problem.

[Patti Edens]

I've seen the idea mentioned several times (twice in the thread now) that one should get the photo right with the camera and not rely on PS or some other processing technique. Is this only valid if you are shooting jpegs and can put some type of parameters in the camera so that the camera will automatically adjust contrast, saturation, sharpness and tone based on some preset or on how you choose them to be?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but since I shoot RAW, isn't quite a bit of post processing necessary? I find that I almost always have to make some levels tweak, usually a contrast tweak, sometimes a saturation and sometimes some sharpening is necessary. And since I just keep the camera on AWB, I usually have to adjust the white balance. Am I doing something wrong? Is there a way to shoot RAW with a Canon digital camera and not have to do quite a bit of post processing?

When I do shoot jpeg (rarely, but sometimes I get both the RAW and a jpeg), I still have to do a little tweaking because I can't find one set of parameters that works for all shooting situations.

Patti