How do I describe sharpness due to lighting

[ccting]

Currently, I stop learning photography for past 2 months, and resume my learning on lighting..

preliminary study: camera histogram.
I will analyze the characteristic of sharpness because of lighting based on

1)Photo Acutance
2) Photo Resolution
3) Noise Acutance
4)Noise Resolution
5)Viewing distance
6)Camera shake
7)Shutter speed
8)Visible Halos
9)Radius
10)Amount
11)Threshold/masking
12)Detail
13)Capturing sharpness
14)Creative sharpness
15)output sharpness

a) Any comment?
b) How about you?
c) For Camera histogram, are you looking at pure white histogram or RGB histogram. What conclusions can you draw from RGB / white histogram for the 15 characteristics?
d) Can you relate the 15 characterics / histogram with your camera settings (lens design, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, WB, etc etc)?

Its all about sharpness caused by lighting. Later I attach a causal loop diagram for better readiness.

[jdepould]

The histogram isn't really going to tell you anything about sharpness or acuity. It'll give you a good idea of exposure and contrast ... high contrast images might have more pop, but I wouldn't call it sharpness.

[OsmosisStudios]

I... wut?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what I'm getting is that you're going to judge "sharpness" by those 15 characteristics? Do you know what they mean?

Youre not explaining things very clearly; I dont think that means what you think it means.

[ccting]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I... wut?

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but what I'm getting is that you're going to judge "sharpness" by those 15 characteristics? Do you know what they mean?

Youre not explaining things very clearly; I dont think that means what you think it means.

Yes, I use some to record the lighting settings, some values are recorded during observation when cropped to 200-400%, and others as output / outcome of the observation. I come across a few articles on sharpness due to lighting and I put them in the list. Well, may be i should describe the terminology as most of them are not photography terminology. That's my findings and does not conclude anything..

Needs your view on these 15 items. I just want to quantify the sharpness so to make it consistent and easier to analyze. From the analysis & result, we should be able to discuss how to change the lighting setup to improve the sharpness of our images, in more systematic way. As you know, I am a noob, and noobs understand numbers better than using their 6-sense...It just like KPI (Key Performance Index), we need a quantifiable, measurable scale for performance appraisal .. and avoid using perception to evaluate everything.. ;D

I will draw the causal loop diagram when free..then you will understand the causal and the balance of sharpness...

[Rentham]

Originally Posted by ccting

and avoid using perception to evaluate everything.

Try as you might, you can't boil photography down to a math equation. It is very subjective. Maybe you'd be happier building cameras instead of using them.

[graciousness]

Originally Posted by ccting

Y As you know, I am a noob, and noobs understand numbers better than using their 6-sense..

No. No. No. No. No.

If you can't use your six senses to make a photograph and have to resort to numbers, then you can't do photography. Photography is visual. Light in every scenario is different. You can't do photography in your head and you can't explain light and sharpness with a diagram.

If you can't see and understand what is right there in front of you - LIGHT - then your chances of being a good photographer is not very good. You only need to understand how a camera sees light, but not try to understand what light is in general, period.

Sharpness is all in the settings of the camera and how they are used. Why the frickin' frack would you need to analyse what sharpness is??!? Sharpness is simply the amount of details on parts or all of the image. It's the opposite of BLUR. You need light to see everything around you, otherwise you can't see anything. If your images or part of it aren't subjected to enough light to show details, then they won't be sharp. Your camera, just like your eyes, need light to see details around. Absence of light means darkness. Which means your eyes and your camera can't see details. Loss of details = loss of sharpness = blur.

Now what is so bloody hard to understand about that?


Now can somebody please hand me my medication already!?

[graciousness]

Just in case you start deleting posts again, this is the original post for this thread for others to see what we, the responders, are on about.

CCTING - can you please stop deleting posts in thread because you do this a lot. When you do that, it disturbs the flow of threads and readers get lost if you take posts out. It is better for you to really think about your responses first, then post them, than just reply without much thought and then end up deleting them out of regret.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by ccting

Currently, I stop learning photography for past 2 months, and resume my learning on lighting..

preliminary study: camera histogram.
I will analyze the characteristic of sharpness because of lighting based on

1)Photo Acutance
2) Photo Resolution
3) Noise Acutance
4)Noise Resolution
5)Viewing distance
6)Camera shake
7)Shutter speed
8)Visible Halos
9)Radius
10)Amount
11)Threshold/masking
12)Detail
13)Capturing sharpness
14)Creative sharpness
15)output sharpness

a) Any comment?
b) How about you?
c) For Camera histogram, are you looking at pure white histogram or RGB histogram. What conclusions can you draw from RGB / white histogram for the 15 characteristics?
d) Can you relate the 15 characterics / histogram with your camera settings (lens design, ISO, shutter speed, aperture, WB, etc etc)?

Its all about sharpness caused by lighting. Later I attach a causal loop diagram for better readiness.

[graciousness]

There you go, deleting posts again.

Think before you post.

You posted somewhere along the lines of, "I am a systems analyst, so I'm more like a robot. I don't understand humans...."

Just so you should know, robots need to analyse things once.

Not a good comparison.

[RLucas]

Originally Posted by ccting

we need a quantifiable, measurable scale for performance appraisal .. and avoid using perception to evaluate everything.. ;D
.

If this is ever "needed", I will throw my camera in to a lake.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by ccting

Yes, I use some to record the lighting settings, some values are recorded during observation when cropped to 200-400%, and others as output / outcome of the observation. I come across a few articles on sharpness due to lighting and I put them in the list. Well, may be i should describe the terminology as most of them are not photography terminology. That's my findings and does not conclude anything..

Needs your view on these 15 items. I just want to quantify the sharpness so to make it consistent and easier to analyze. From the analysis & result, we should be able to discuss how to change the lighting setup to improve the sharpness of our images, in more systematic way. As you know, I am a noob, and noobs understand numbers better than using their 6-sense...It just like KPI (Key Performance Index), we need a quantifiable, measurable scale for performance appraisal .. and avoid using perception to evaluate everything.. ;D

I will draw the causal loop diagram when free..then you will understand the causal and the balance of sharpness...

Youre throwing out a lot of words that dont actually make sentences.

Also: Causal loop diagram? What are you talking about? It's a photograph: photons hit the sensor, it creates an image. Things like lighting affect the outcome, but I dont think you understand PHOTOGRAPHY

DPS is a website for PHOTOGRAPHERS, not ENGINEERS. You seem more interested in the technical side of things, and have a poor grasp of it at that. If you want to talk actual PHOTOS, TAKING PHOTOS, or anything related, then, by all means, go ahead. But if you're here just to ramble off random stuff about diagrams and equations and so on.

And for the love of god STOP EDITING/DELETING posts way after the fact, especially after people have answered you. It isn't helping anyone.

On another note:

we need a quantifiable, measurable scale for performance appraisal .. and avoid using perception to evaluate everything.. ;D

This is flat out stupid.