Hard to ignore the extended conversation, re: sharpness, over on T.O.P. So, here's my 2-cents plus change....
In the long-gone, for me, days of analog picture making, I expended considerable time and effort making (and printing) my personal/ so called fine art pictures with an 8x10 view camera + color negative film. I did so for a couple reasons, not the least of which was that it was very in vogue amongst the New Color Photography cadre. That aside, the primary reason I did so was because I really appreciated, what I would label, the smooth, "liquid" and essentially grain-less color and tonal quality which came from using large format color negative film. And, yes, the resultant prints looked very sharp.
However, sharpness wise, the level of sharpness was considerably less than what is possible, even "normal", with digital capture and printing. Back in the day, if I were to want the sine non qua of sharpness, I would have had to use, and occasionally did, 120 (medium format) Kodachrome roll film. Now that was a truly sharp film.
Fast forward backwards (is that possible?) to my early testing of the waters, digital domain wise. I was surprised at the level of sharpness that seemed to be inherent with the digital process, even with a modest 4-6mp sensor. Certainly, sharpness at level beyond what was the norm, color negative wise. However, what I also noticed, digital v. analog, was that the smooth, liquid look/quality that I treasured was not so much in evidence.
Consequently, I set to work in Photoshop in pursuit of emulating a smooth liquid color and tonal look. Long story short-after quite a bit of experimentation with Gaussian Blur, I found that, amongst a few other adjustments (to include subtle contrast reduction), a sukoshi, aka "skosh", of Gaussian Blur moved things in the desired direction.
To this day, even with my iPhone files, I follow the same Gaussian Blur processing routine. In doing so, I find that my prints have a very similar look to those C prints I made from color negative film back in the day. Unforunately, that is a look that is almost impossible to replicate with online viewing. Blame down-sampling and who-the-hell-knows what monitor calibration (or lack thereof) is being used to view the work online.
Re: the pictures in this entry. If anyone thinks they should be sharper, they just ain't paying attention to what I am "saying" with these pictures.