>>4144392>>4144396>>4144397To conclude, as someone who has scanned tens of thousands of images from a huge number of disparate photographers from amateurs to very successful pros, I can tell you that images without camera shake stand out like a beacon.
Most photographers do not know, and refuse to believe how much camera shake is in their images. It takes an almost immeasurable amount to degrade an image. And no one wants to believe that's happening in their images.
But when you look at your images, and they seem to fall short for reasons you can't identify, it's most likely infinitesimal camera shake.
Because most, if not all large format images, and almost all good medium format images are taken with a tripod, the chances of those images having minimal or no camera shake is high. It's that "look," the sharp distinction between the focused subject and its background, caused by the lack of camera shake, which gives images from these formats their distinctive quality. Of course, more shallow DOF contributes. But it is the striking technical image quality that really does the job.
And this is why LF and MF images are said to possess "3D pop." But their image quality is more a function of lack of camera shake, more than the other reasons usually given.
Smaller formats can obtain a similar look when their image quality is held high. And it requires eliminating camera shake.
Your gear is certainly capable of the kind of "look" you are trying to nail down.
It's light and absence of camera shake.
I think if you study the lighting in the images you like and try to look for similar light in your photographic opportunities, you will see a marked improvement. Shallow DOF will help, but is not absolutely necessary. And you must strive to eliminate camera shake completely, by whatever means you can.
-- The Boomer
