Commons talk:Featured picture candidates/File:Episcia cupreata 08Nov29.jpg

• • Sharpnes is a tricky thing to judge. In order not to make this a hard to comprehend, I will try to explain it in simple terms. For the human eye, an image printed at 300 dpi is considered “a standard” for a good quality, sharp image. This is for offset work, and this value when printed in photographic media it is even better.

So basically, an image should be judged for sharpness at 300 dpi at 100% reproduction. That is, an 8x10 at 300 dpi should be relatively sharp in the areas that are intended to be sharp.

Sometimes the problem here, whe someone says that a picture is unsharp, what they do is enlarge the photograph at the pixel level and when that is done, obviously sharpness will suffer, because it is not being appreciated at its optimal reproduction size, which is 300 dpi at whatever physical size that may be. Compunded here is the fact that computer monitors are only 72 dpi, which will never give you a real rendition of sharpness.

Photographs are bit map images, and the more you enlarge, the fuzzier they will become. Put a magnifying glass to any high quality offset work and the screen will show up, becoming eventually a collection of dots, in a flower pattern of different colors. In today´s computer work, we confuse bitmap images and vector images. They are not the same. Vector images are scalable and do not lose sharpness, bitmap images are not scalable and lose sharpness with the degree of magnification.

If someone says that a bitmap image is unsharp at 200% or more of their reproduction size and below 300 dpi they don´t know what they are talking about. But if you step away, the unsharpness gradually dissapears. As an example, get up close to a billboard image, you will see how unsharp those images are up close.

On the other hand, a fotography image is formed on bi dimensional plane, height and width, and the subjects photograhed do not occur in bidimensional plane, but rather, in a tree dimensional area. So basically, photography transfers three dimensions into two dimensions.

When that happens, an optical phenomenom occurs. When the camera is focused on a certain subject, everything that is aligned with that subject on a perpependicular plane of the camera will be in critical focus. As other objects are in front of or behind the camera, they will gradually become out of focus. This can be mitigated by the use of smaller apertures, buth they will never be as sharp as the focused object. They will have the appearance of sharpness, but they will not be sharp.

Depth of field, as an element of photography, requires another long discussion.

As a rule, the further camera-subject distance, the greater dept of field, that is, objects will appear to be in focus. As the camera-subject decreases, the shallower depth of field. In macro photography the distance camera-subject is at a very minimun, and that means that no matter what, even in high end equipment, this will occurr.

As an example of depth of field. Put your thumb I front of you, at the minimun focusing distance of your eye. Then, focusing on your thumb, with your peripheral vision, see how everything behind it looks…. Fuzzy, out of focus…

So out of focus areas in photography will almost likely occur, and in fact, this is a creative aspect of photography too. This does not mean that because something is out of focus a particular work has to be disqualified or lacks in quality, but rather, analyzed according to the particular situation and determine that if under the circumstances tha photograph has technical and aesthetic merit. To demand a technical result that is not possible due to photographic and technical reality is, stupid, for lack of a better word. Judge according to the medium. There are values for photography, for painting, for music.

When everything is in absolute sharpness it is called hyper-realism, and that only occurs in painting.

Critique of any discipline necessitates that the critiquer commands the principles or distinctions of the art. Criticism without knowledge is fine, but limits its value or validity to the aesthetic preferences of the viewer. Now, no one is born knowing all, but that is the beauty of life… so much to learn! That is the true adventure.

--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please stop paternizing everybody, as your long lessons and incapacity of accepting criticism might be taken as pretentious and offensive by many. If you really want to share your knowledge and skill what better way than showing your best photos, which apparently you have failed so far? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Alvesgaspar, you are talking about two things. The first is long lessons. Well, in life the good things sometimes are long, and photography is definitely one of those things that take a long, long time. I am still learning. Well, if your attention span does not allow you for long lessons, just ignore them. Some people may find them useful. Some will not. As for me accepting criticism, as that defined as unfavorable criticism, that which springs from envy, anger, ignorance or other base human emotions, yes, I have a problem with that. If, on the other hand, criticism, in the sense of evaluating, discussing (which is not necessarily liking) that is based on an open minded and well informed debate, bring it on. As far as sharing my knowledge, well, I am. The "lessons" I am puting forth here are apersonal. Showing my best photos? I do, here and in other places. In some places they are better received than in others, and this particular forum, not Wikipedia, is problably the most hostile and yet less qualified photography forum on the net. What a contradiction. So, if you really want to take a shot, let´s do it on the merits of the discipline. I have absolutely no problem with that. If yo want to take a shot on the rethorics of supposed authority, we can do it as sport. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

While Tomascastelazo comments were long, they were not patronizing and made some very valid points. We tend to get distracted by issues that have less to do with capturing great pictures and more to do with picky technical issues. --J.smith (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)