Question about Focus Quality/Sharpness on Portrait Photography

[PMesritz]

I've been shooting a lot of different people lately and one of the things that I'm trying to figure out is where the line is for worrying about focus quality/sharpness on normal portraits. I'm looking at them from the perspective of online viewing in JPG format, 5x7, 8x10 and 16x20 sizes, but wouldn't mind a discussion of when too much is too much.

The goal here, for me, is focused on the eyes.


Set of 3:
Comparison - a set on Flickr

What I've done is upload 3 images that I think look fine/sharp (maybe I'm wrong?) at normal websizes, but when you zoom in far enough, you can tell the difference in sharpness and focus quality around the eyes. Larger versions available on the flickr site.

#1 is the least focused around the eyes.

sharpness-low by pmesritz, on Flickr

#2 is a mid point.


sharpness-mid by pmesritz, on Flickr

#3 is the best of the three.


sharpness-most by pmesritz, on Flickr

The question I have for everyone out there is how particular should I be? My wife and a few clients have said that I'm overly picky about the sharpness, but I feel that I want to put my best work forward whenever possible. That having been said, I also don't want to discard images that would work just fine simply because I can zoom in far enough on a computer. :)

If you want the lightroom DNG files, I can send them for your import review. These images have had no retouching done other than lens correction in LightRoom. I have not touched WB, exposure, etc etc so no critique there please ;)

Thanks for all of your assistance and comments!

- Philippe

[Tom]

I am extremely picky about sharpness. I learned the hard way with one of my first clients. My best moment capture was soft. It looked great for web, but printed out bigger than 4x6 it would have looked terrible.

So that's my standard. If you can print it 8x10 on desk (viewed from 2 feet) and it is fine, it should be cool. If not, delete.

You really don't want to show a picture, have them fall in love, then explain that it isn't in focus enough to print 20x30 on the wall. It makes you look unprofessional and incompetent.

[PMesritz]

I completely agree!

To build on that, though, how can I tell whether it'll print well on an 8x10 on a desk from 10 feet if I'm looking at it on screen? Considering you can zoom in at 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and further, where's that "point" that it matters?

[Tom]

Print some test prints at Costco and see what you get. I would suggest trying a variety of things on a variety of sharpnesses, but I generally only keep what is tack sharp at 100%*

[tomdrink]

Originally Posted by Tom

Print some test prints at Costco and see what you get. I would suggest trying a variety of things on a variety of sharpnesses, but I generally only keep what is tack sharp at 100%*

I was looking at a pic I took (just a snap, not meant for anything) on Sunday, and when viewed at 100% you can see not only the ceiling fan in the baby's eye, but also the shadow of the fans five blades on the ceiling! It doesn't show up on this uploaded jpeg, but it will be my new benchmark for sharpness!
(Nikon D200, 105mm micro, f/3, 1/60th, ISO 280)

TomD

[reader0428]

For me, if the eyes look nice and sharp when zoomed in to 1:1 in Lightroom (or 100% in Photoshop), I'm happy to show it to a client. I always do a little extra sharpening on the eyes anyway, but I always start with a good sharp image to begin with.

I also second what Tom said about not showing anything you don't think you can enlarge. It really sucks to delete your favorite shot, especially if it's just a tad bit off and looks pretty good small and online, but sometimes that's how it goes.

[venchka]

I can see the fan on my phone. Obviously the Micro-Nikkor deserves it's reputation. I'm not sure that the fan would look right enlarged on paper.

Phillipe, you said no CC on exposure,etc. I would offer that lighting and exposure have as much, or more, to do with apparent sharpness as correct focus or optical quality. My personal opinion formed over a long time.

[MicWayWal]

Who wants to print something out to see if it is sharp or the retouching is obvious? A waste of time, money, and resources. You have to know what it will look like when printed, BEFORE it is printed. The appearance of sharpness and retouching can be acceptable in smaller sizes but not in larger sizes. The goal is to determine how it will look by viewing on the monitor.

Critical Note: I work on all my images at 300dpi.

RULE: I determined that when I view an image in PS at 33% zoom, what you can see on the monitor is very close to what you can see with the naked eye on a print the same size as the file.

For example, an OOC file of mine when zoomed to 33% will look the same on the monitor as when printed to 8x12.

I don't have to print out anything to know exactly what it will look like when printed. From 8x10 to 40x60, I know how it will look before I save the file. I know how much sharpening, retouching, noise, and detail will appear on the print

[Tom]

Michael- I am guessing that some people that aren't as experienced as you don't understand the relationship between what the see on the screen and what shows up in print.

[ngoduyviet]

Sharpness isn't everything in portraits. Remember, they made soft focus lens a long time ago for a reason. Aesthetically pleasing portrait is as important as your sharpness.

[MicWayWal]

Originally Posted by Tom

Michael- I am guessing that some people that aren't as experienced as you don't understand the relationship between what the see on the screen and what shows up in print.

Do you want to know more?
What I have done several times and still do with each new monitor, is to select 2 or 3 typical images of what I usually produce. I make a 8x10 print of the files that were cropped to 8x10 at 300dpi. I have the lab print them with no color correction. When I get the prints back, I bring the image up on the monitor using PS. I then compare what I see on the monitor vs what is on the print side by side. You will then see at what zoom level you want to examine your file. For me it is 33% zoom.

[PMesritz]

Originally Posted by venchka

I can see the fan on my phone. Obviously the Micro-Nikkor deserves it's reputation. I'm not sure that the fan would look right enlarged on paper.

Phillipe, you said no CC on exposure,etc. I would offer that lighting and exposure have as much, or more, to do with apparent sharpness as correct focus or optical quality. My personal opinion formed over a long time.

Wayne,

I completely agree with you regarding the exposure, etc. The three that I posted are not the best options, but they happened to be very close in pose and exposure, but still have a decent differential in sharpness :)

Thanks to everyone for the great discussion so far.

[PMesritz]

Originally Posted by MicWayWal

Do you want to know more?
What I have done several times and still do with each new monitor, is to select 2 or 3 typical images of what I usually produce. I make a 8x10 print of the files that were cropped to 8x10 at 300dpi. I have the lab print them with no color correction. When I get the prints back, I bring the image up on the monitor using PS. I then compare what I see on the monitor vs what is on the print side by side. You will then see at what zoom level you want to examine your file. For me it is 33% zoom.

yeah, that's basically what I just decided to do. I printed each of the above out on 8x10 and 5x7 so I could determine what level of sharpness I wanted to go with.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by MicWayWal

Do you want to know more?
What I have done several times and still do with each new monitor, is to select 2 or 3 typical images of what I usually produce. I make a 8x10 print of the files that were cropped to 8x10 at 300dpi. I have the lab print them with no color correction. When I get the prints back, I bring the image up on the monitor using PS. I then compare what I see on the monitor vs what is on the print side by side. You will then see at what zoom level you want to examine your file. For me it is 33% zoom.

That was exactly my point.