How the Hel_ can you tell?
I read this regularly in comments on web images, both here and elsewhere, with
the implicit or explicit context that the
camera, lens and/or photographer are responsible for that. "Wow! That
Glotzmayer 63/4.5 is amazingly sharp!" about an
800 pixel wide image. Feh!
Truth is, you can't tell from a small JPEG whether the image is anywhere near
sharp at a larger display size.
Just because the subject lends itself nicely to downsampling and/or the one who
processed it knows what they are doing,
doesn't mean the original is necessarily exceptional.
I've faked real sharpness in posted images of rather soft originals, to the
extent of getting the occasional positive
comment about sharpness. Works with some subjects and sizes, not so much with
others.
I am forever fighting with tack sharp images of foliage with fine detail that
just never look quite right at web sizes.
Some come out alright, but never conveying the sense of the originals.
Sharply Grumpy Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|