Pixel peeping question

[Bubbahotep]

Are these sharp enough for 12"x16" prints? I'm sure they're fine for Instagram and I know they'll look awful poster sized, but what about a size inbetween? Let me know. I ask because I think the photos work well as a sequence. (I have an unprocessed image of the owl sticking the landing.) I wonder if the images are sharp enough to complete the sequence or whether I'll be wasting my time. Thanks in advance.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DRwyoming]

Are these sharp enough for 12"x16" prints? I'm sure they're fine for Instagram and I know they'll look awful poster sized, but what about a size inbetween? Let me know. Perhaps by asking the question, I subconsciously suspect that they are not sharp enough. Thanks in advance.

Very hard to tell from downsized web images. What are the remaining pixel dimensions after any cropping you've done? What do the images look like at 50% or 100% zoom level (not 200%, 400% etc.) in a tool like Lightroom or Photoshop?

Have you already played with pulling up shadow detail around the eye?

FWIW, though I like crisp images I've printed and published some that I felt were a tad soft that worked beautifully in print so in the end it's up to you as to whether the image works in its totality including eye sharpness.

 

[gnpToday]

Agreed, everything Dave said.

 

[Len Shepherd]

You can increase the pixel dimensions by 4x in current PhotoShop/Lightroom and some other PP software - with AI making a decent job of creating extra detail in the enlarged image source for about 80% of images.
This can help when an original image is not quite sharp enough for a specific size print, especially with images taken when 12 MP was a high resolution digital camera.

In addition I find printed images display at least 1 stop extra sharpness compared to viewing on a 5k monitor.

As others have pointed out it is difficult to make a final judgement based on your small size image.

 

[bleirer]

If you have the pixels then it goes hand in hand with the viewing distance. Looking at a 10x15 inch print from 20 inches away is going to appear as sharp as looking at the same image at 20x30 from 40 inches away or a 200 x 300 inch print from 400 inches away. In other words if it is sharp then if it is sharp. Assuming you have the pixels per inch to match the viewing distance.

 

[bleirer]

You can increase the pixel dimensions by 4x in current PhotoShop/Lightroom and some other PP software - with AI making a decent job of creating extra detail in the enlarged image source for about 80% of images.
This can help when an original image is not quite sharp enough for a specific size print, especially with images taken when 12 MP was a high resolution digital camera.

In addition I find printed images display at least 1 stop extra sharpness compared to viewing on a 5k monitor.

As others have pointed out it is difficult to make a final judgement based on your small size image.

I'm wondering what you mean by 1 stop of sharpness?

 

[raptor photo]

Sharpness isn't a huge issue, but the shadows kind of make it way worse. I would lift them up for sure. If you think sharpness is an issue, you could get DXO photo lab that will help it significantly.

 

[MrFotoFool]

Agree it's hard to tell how something will print from a screen image, but based on what I see here I think these will work fine.

 

[Len Shepherd]

I'm wondering what you mean by 1 stop of sharpness?

That a slight degree of unsharpness viewed on a higher resolution monitor usually looks satisfactorily sharp on a 16 by 12 or 20 x 16 inch print.

 

[bleirer]

That a slight degree of unsharpness viewed on a higher resolution monitor usually looks satisfactorily sharp on a 16 by 12 or 20 x 16 inch print.

I thought I was missing out because someone knew how to calculate how many stops of sharpness and i didn't.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Thanks for your feedback. I think ultimately, I'll need to print one of the photos (probably the least sharp) in order to get an idea of what the sequence will look like. This is the last image of the sequence. While I have an image that follows this, I don't think it makes sense to include because the owl is looking away.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[Len Shepherd]

The bird position, although not wild and free, is good and the lighting is good. There also at this image size seems to be a reasonable amount of detail in the bird feathers.

If your post another version significantly cropped to include the head and only part of the wings, this will better indicate whether the image has sufficient detail to be substantially enlarged and viewed at a close distance of perhaps 20 inches while still showing good feather detail.

A relative weakness of this images from the sequence – others may not have the same issue – is that a depth of field limitation does seem to be a softening the feather detail on the far side of the birds eye.

The image prior to this one in the posted sequence, the one with the outstretched feet, I consider to be the best action shot. Unfortunately as far as I can tell the auto focus has chosen the birds feet and the face is relatively unsharp. The shot before this in the sequence seems to have better detail on the face.

 

[Abinoone]

Are these sharp enough for 12"x16" prints? I'm sure they're fine for Instagram and I know they'll look awful poster sized, but what about a size inbetween? Let me know. I ask because I think the photos work well as a sequence. (I have an unprocessed image of the owl sticking the landing.) I wonder if the images are sharp enough to complete the sequence or whether I'll be wasting my time. Thanks in advance.

Very nice composition and lighting! Like others have mentioned, it’s entirely up to you what‘s acceptable. They do look soft to me, and there’s some noise that’s distracting. Have you used a tool like Topaz AI DeNoise? It might help. Personally, I wouldn’t print them, but I’m a stickler for quality. You might try doing a cheap 8x10” at Walmart or CVS, just to see if you find it acceptable.

 

[Bubbahotep]

The bird position, although not wild and free, is good and the lighting is good. There also at this image size seems to be a reasonable amount of detail in the bird feathers.

If your post another version significantly cropped to include the head and only part of the wings, this will better indicate whether the image has sufficient detail to be substantially enlarged and viewed at a close distance of perhaps 20 inches while still showing good feather detail.

A relative weakness of this images from the sequence – others may not have the same issue – is that a depth of field limitation does seem to be a softening the feather detail on the far side of the birds eye.

The image prior to this one in the posted sequence, the one with the outstretched feet, I consider to be the best action shot. Unfortunately as far as I can tell the auto focus has chosen the birds feet and the face is relatively unsharp. The shot before this in the sequence seems to have better detail on the face.

I appreciate your well considered critique. Thanks.

Very nice composition and lighting! Like others have mentioned, it’s entirely up to you what‘s acceptable. They do look soft to me, and there’s some noise that’s distracting. Have you used a tool like Topaz AI DeNoise? It might help. Personally, I wouldn’t print them, but I’m a stickler for quality. You might try doing a cheap 8x10” at Walmart or CVS, just to see if you find it acceptable.

I've already did the Topaz thing. I agree that the sequence isn't the sharpest. I think your idea of doing a smaller test print makes sense.