Focus on focus

Gortch

Gortch

Suspended / Banned
Messages
161
Name
Gordon
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm relatively new to posting on the site but I have visited for some years. I've noticed that a large percentage of pictures are out of focus and nobody seems to say so. Now that I have signed up and can comment, I get to ask the question; are people too nice to say anything or do they really not notice?

My own view is that people ought to say when a shot is out of focus.
 
I'd suggest that where you notice that that is the case you address the person whose photos they are and they can provide you the answer.

I don't think people on here are that nice not to comment
 
Really? I've seen people on here pick up on focus issues countless times.
Could you provide a couple of examples where you think a critical focus issue has slipped by without comment?
 
Well, as it happens to be one I was just reading, try this http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/just-started-experimenting-photographing-in-macro.524424/

The discussion that follows is interesting.

I'll be honest though, it's my opinion that 50 to 60 % of the pictures I look at on here are out. Most are very slightly out but if they were mine I'd delete them. Also a lot have clearly been tampered with in an attempt to hide the fact that they are out, with the old tricks of adding contrast, clarity, and sharpening in evidence. These tricks don't work though, most of the time they make it worse. Out of focus photographs are valueless.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to look at the 1st & 3rd posts again their is nothing wrong with the sharpness in both of them :confused:
 
I must admit I'm not really seeing the focus issue on the first and third either that said on the third it's only viewable to 900px and frankly that's too small to make a definitive call, if you see a photo that you think is out of focus say so in the thread, so long as its in the critique sections, just ensure your constructive in your delivery it shouldn't cause offence (y)

I've not noticed a large issue of OOF images if I'm honest
 
The spider is fine, you can see the plane of focus by looking at the web.

The chameleon may have the point of focus on the body rather than the eye. Hard to tell when it's shot at f/14 and displayed at such a small size though. I certainly wouldn't say it was a major issue. (who says you always need to focus on the eye anyway?).

The flowers do look out. But I think the problem is compounded by the equipment used, and the treatment of the file.
 
I'm not sure how you can judge 1 and 3 for sharpness as they're just low res JPEGs. I'd never comment on focus unless it's apparent, or I can view the full resolution image.

Image no.2 is awful though... looks like it's heavily cropped in and/or out of focus to me. It has bad CA issues... poorly processed, and looks terrible, yet there's a reply of "Nice shot... I like the muted colours and it is nice and sharp, I would prefer a bit more space top and bottom of shot though."


I agree with Gordon to an extent here.... people are just too nice, and have developed this reciprocal "if I like them, they'll like me.... let's all stick together" mentality. No. 2 is an awful image.... why tell anyone it's sharp and has muted colours when it;'s blurred and is over saturated and over processed? What favours re you actually doing by saying that?

I can't honestly say with any certainty whether 1 or 3 are sharp though. Simply too low res.


Essentially, telling people you like their work is utterly useless unless you say why... and even more useless if you do say why, but say something blatantly untrue about it.
 
Gordon.. have a lie down and a cold compress.. there's a difference between crudely pointing out a defect that you see with an image and politely pointing out a defect you see with an image with guidance on how to improve. Pointing and shouting on a thread only makes one person look bad. Go look at the critique guidance thread, and if you need it written simply - try the "sh*t sandwich" technique until you get the hang of being constructive.

I can't even be a***d going to look to see if your own images are any better.
 
I'd tend to agree that its very difficult to judge sharpness at these resolutions.

Your not coming from a background of using compacts where most of the image will be in focus even at macro distances are you Gortch? DOF is always going to be limited when taking macro shots with a larger sensor even when stopped down along way.
 
I can't say as I notice a huge amount being OOF, but I tend to hang around the Portraits threads for the most part... and people are usually pretty good with pointing out missed focus around there...
 
surfg1mp said:
The first one of the spider looks ok to me.....but then I don't look to closely. Out of interest what type of photography do you favor.
Click to expand...

The spider's web right under where the spiders mouth/head area would be is in focus -- I say would be because we can't see it and the area is in shadow. There's no way you would intentionally focus there.

The chameleon misses by a long shot, look at the flickr version. Actually on this photo the point of focus is very near to the spine which I think is about a half inch from the eye in relation to the focal plane.

Inevitably people will ask about my photography etc and try and spin this round. I'm a graphic designer not a photographer. I've been looking at images and design every day and night for about 18 years. Photography is a hobby to me not my profession.

A few years ago, when most of the stock photos we bought and used derived from film, this was never an issue. Now that most stock art is digital we find this all the time.
 
Moreorless said:
I'd tend to agree that its very difficult to judge sharpness at these resolutions.

Your not coming from a background of using compacts where most of the image will be in focus even at macro distances are you Gortch? DOF is always going to be limited when taking macro shots with a larger sensor even when stopped down along way.
Click to expand...

I agree that with macro it's much more difficult. That's the challenge.

And I agree as most people are saying it's often difficult to tell. Some years ago we used to print them out and look at them on a light-board with a magnifying glass. We can't do that now but we can zoom in. We can still be honest too, we haven't digitised our integrity and judgement.
 
simonblue said:
I think you need to look at the 1st & 3rd posts again their is nothing wrong with the sharpness in both of them :confused:
Click to expand...

So you agree with the second one of the flowery plant. The remarkable thing about that is that there isn't an area where correct focus is achieved, usually you can see where the real focal plane is. This is how you spot out of focus shots or at least is one of the big indicators -- the logic being simple, if someone's ear is in focus, the chances are there eyes will not be, etc, all things considered (dof etc).
 
Ed Sutton said:
Recommended reading. :D
Click to expand...

Ed, I don't want to sound like I'm pulling rank or something. I'm not. In the industry I'm in we buy stock art and use it on printed materials. I actually don't care about focus but trust me, when you have a truck load of brochures getting taken to be recycled because some prick in marketing complains about quality, you start to take these issues more seriously.

Here's something a lot of people who are web oriented on here will not be aware of. When you litho print something that is out of focus it doesn't look out of focus, it looks like you have used a poor low resolution image.
 
sunnyside_up said:
I can't say as I notice a huge amount being OOF, but I tend to hang around the Portraits threads for the most part... and people are usually pretty good with pointing out missed focus around there...
Click to expand...

Any Portrait photographer worth his or her salt would spot this. Those guys are generally more disciplined. Wedding photographers too are generally more disciplined on this but not always. If these guys don't get it right it's going to cost them big time in terms of money and credibility. Try showing some jubilant bride a blurry "you may kiss the bride" shot and you'll soon see how important focus is.
 
I'm certainly not qualified to comment all that much but it would be nice to see this thread have some serious discussions- i have a feeling it may become a slanging match again though, sadly
 
So are you suggesting that every image has to be 100% sharp and if its its not it should be binned? (Please don’t make me crawl through the internet dragging out every iconic image of the 20th Century that is not 100% tack sharp, because there’s an awful lot of them!)
Or are you just referring to images like the ones you’ve shown above where there should be no excuse for poor sharpness?

If its the latter, I totally agree :)

BTW I think the awful flowery stick thing is not necessarily OOF, it looks more like motion blur to me.
 
Gortch said:
Ed, I don't want to sound like I'm pulling rank or something. I'm not.
Click to expand...

Did ya miss the smiley? ;)

FWIW I have worked with the editor of a fishing magazine and know how often he tore his hair out over out of focus photos supplied by contributors which made their submissions unusable, but this is a web based photography forum, not a print industry forum. Lighten up a bit. :)
 
Gortch said:
I'm relatively new to posting on the site but I have visited for some years. I've noticed that a large percentage of pictures are out of focus and nobody seems to say so. Now that I have signed up and can comment, I get to ask the question; are people too nice to say anything or do they really not notice?

My own view is that people ought to say when a shot is out of focus.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if your monitor is the problem. I can see a big difference when the same photo is viewed with different monitors. If not, I agree...lighten up. People sometimes take pictures for the joy of it, not for being judged by professional print standards. I'd much rather see a photo that's a) interesting, b) unusual, c) tells a story, or d) feels inspirational than a boring shot that's perfectly in focus. It's one thing to be critical when the need is there, but it should always be tempered with a little constructiveness.
 
Well good on you gortch for being in a job where pin sharp images are so important. ;) I personally see nothing wrong with 1 & 3 and as for number 2 I quite like it. Some people do seem to get hung up on one thing or another. My own pet hate is motorsport photographs done at "silly angles" Doesn't mean they aren't good photographs just not to my taste.
 
As other people have said, some of us just take photos for fun of it and post on here because we are proud of what we have a achieved. C&C should be the truth to help the individual gain skills but there is away to go about it, don't just sit on a high horse preaching about pixel peeping and printing thousands of them off. its all fun lighten up :banana::)
 
Gortch said:
So you agree with the second one of the flowery plant. The remarkable thing about that is that there isn't an area where correct focus is achieved, usually you can see where the real focal plane is. This is how you spot out of focus shots or at least is one of the big indicators -- the logic being simple, if someone's ear is in focus, the chances are there eyes will not be, etc, all things considered (dof etc).
Click to expand...

In the flower shot i will agree,their is no point of focus.
But sharpness is an subjected thing,in some areas of photographer it is important to make sure things are in focus,but in others ie street, photojournalist etc not so much so :)
 
Sharpness Is a difficult subject.
Absolute sharpness can only ever exist in a single plain, though apparent sharpness can be increased by extending the depth of field with choice of aperture.
Using a smaller aperture only helps to a certain point, where Diffraction becomes greater than any gain.
As is obvious not all lenses are of equal quality, nor can all sensors or media resolve the same amount of data.
Even when a lens is perfectly focussed, sharpness can be lost through movement or atmospherics.

Sharpness is only one aspect of an image and not necessarily the most important.
So to dismiss a photograph solely on the grounds of its sharpness can make no sense at all.

I have no sympathy with people who pixel peep and dismiss any photograph because it does not meet their idea of technical perfection.

An Image should be judged on the values that it does haves, not on those that are unimportant to its context.

We see some fairly unsharp and uninteresting photographs on this forum. We see rather more sharp and uninteresting ones.
I am just very happy to see interesting shots of any kind.
 
I feel I dress quite sharply.:cool:
 
Out of all the photos from one of my sets, this is one of those that gets favourited :) - his hand is in focus.... :D

 
Of course Grotch is welcome to share some of his photos. Personally I do like images to be tack shape, something I often fail at, but it's not the be all and end all.
 
Lyope said:
“Sharpness is a bourgeois concept” Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Click to expand...

He said that for a purpose, very few of his greatest shots were anything like sharp, or lost anything because of it.
 
Gortch said:
The chameleon misses by a long shot, look at the flickr version. Actually on this photo the point of focus is very near to the spine which I think is about a half inch from the eye in relation to the focal plane.
.
Click to expand...

are you sure its not your monitor / eyes - the chameleopn looks pretty sharp on my screen - although as said its a low res so you can't judge sharpness of the original image 100% from it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top