• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / Resolution and sharpness are often the short poles in the photographic tent

Resolution and sharpness are often the short poles in the photographic tent

March 11, 2024 JimK 6 Comments

On Friday, I hung an exhibition. 35 prints, with sizes ranging from 8×20 to 40×40 inches.

 

 

Kind of a retrospective, with images from Alone in a Crowd, This Green, Growing Land, Nighthawks, Staccato, Los Robles, some street images, and two others, including one from my newest series, Ft. Ord Graffiti. All of the Alone in a Crowd images were captured on medium format film. Same with the street photography. But only one image was made with a medium format digital camera:

 

I didn’t realize that until the show was up, and I asked myself why not more MF digital images, since that’s what I’ve mostly been doing for the past eight years.

Here’s my analysis.

I didn’t include any of the Betterlight Super 6K images from Timescapes, since it takes quite a few examples to understand what that’s all about. No Spots on my Apples images for the same reason. That lets out a lot of more recent work.

What distinguishes MF digital from smaller formats. Mostly resolution and image clarity. There is one series represented in the show that demands high resolution, Los Robles. It was shot mostly with 24 MP FF cameras, which are not high res devices. However, the series consists of stitched images with 50 to 150 captures for each completed image. That yields a lot of resolution; so much that I had to downsample the results by a lot to print them.

But the thing that struck me most was how few of the images depended on resolution and sharpness for their success.

Some examples:

 

 

Neon Guitar, Lax Vegas

 

 

 

 

 

Pedestrian, North Beach, San Francisco

One nice thing about starting out with blurry images is that, if they look good small,  you can print them really big and they still look great.

I spend a lot of time in this blog testing for the sharpest cameras and lenses. But when the photographic rubber meets the road, content trumps both of those.

 

The Last Word

← Nikon 135 Plena OOF PSFs Circles of confusion, and circles of the confused →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    March 12, 2024 at 10:32 am

    Right Jim, especially whey they are printed on canvas 🙂

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 12, 2024 at 12:17 pm

      There is that, but the canvas the printer used is pretty darned good in holding detail. Not like a baryta print, but not bad at all.

      Reply
  2. Pieter Kers says

    March 13, 2024 at 2:48 am

    first: congratulations with the exposition! Looks good: like the way you cand fold canvas on the sides.
    about sharpness
    You always look at 200% in your tests while the print is mostly about 25%.
    This whole shapness thing came with digital images on a screen, before that in the analogue days I mostly looked at the whole image. but yes i am infected too.
    Once made a panorama of about 150 46MP images and could print it 9m wide and 3m high.
    Razor sharp.
    It came to hang on an exposition of steel manufacturers were there were many billboards, often made from a simple jpeg image.
    To my suprprise my photo did not stand out at all ! The simplest images with the largest contrast stood out; made more impact. https://www.beeld.nu/beeld/stationarnhem2/index.html

    Reply
  3. Tex Andrews says

    March 13, 2024 at 3:36 pm

    A somewhat curious post. All true, but it leaves out a lot i think. To whit: I’d much rather have the better file as an option, so I’d rather have the best camera and lenses. This is not to say I don’t have images I cherish from smaller formats. But I do wish I’d had the gear I’ve got now when I shot them.

    Reply
  4. Some random photographer says

    March 15, 2024 at 10:37 am

    I used to shoot and print mostly from film and have never been completely satisfied with my transition to digital. There is no question that digital is technically superior. But the quality that stands out when I look at my favorite prints is texture, not resolution. I’m bringing up this tired discussion about film and digital for a reason: I made several decent prints from one of my favorite negatives; my favorite print from that group was one that was printed minutely out of focus. That slight and inadvertently diffused light from the enlarger gave the already stark and grainy print a soft and radiant glow that made it subtly preferable to the other prints.

    Texture and depth are more important for some images. Resolution and acuity are suited for others.

    Reply
  5. les cordes says

    March 21, 2024 at 9:59 pm

    Incredible exhibition incidentally !

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.