Good day all.   Tricky question...  Is it properly focused ?

It's focused somewhere but with a very shallow depth of field. So most of the image is oof 

The focal plane doesn't appear all that planar. Is it taken through an astigmatic lens?

I don't think it's a question of focus. It looks like a detail from a painting. With modern digital techniques, I can't tell whether it's an actual painting (meticulously detailed, I would say hyperrealist) or a photograph made to look like one. 

Might be in focus if you shrink it down to about 1/10th of its size ...

But, with my eyesight, it looks fine to me.

Low rez.

If I were a Victorian man, I would be excited by the image.  

Thanks.   Interesting...  Peterkin, how does your rationale work to discern is a detail from a painting ?   Because it is.  A photo of a hyperrealistic oil painting masterpiece that made me drool in admiration. 

--->  https://www.tuttartpitturasculturapoesiamusica.com/2010/11/iman-maleki.html

18 minutes ago, Externet said:

Peterkin, how does your rationale work to discern is a detail from a painting ?

It can't be the whole painting, since there is insufficient subject for one. Then, there is the canvas-like surface texture, in close-up, and the flatness of the image. The factor most indicative that it's a painting is the sort of tentative outline of the top surface of the shin: there are a couple of faint extra likes of lighter paint parallel to that surface, and a dry-brush trace at the edge itself. You can see the same thing along the leading edge of the hand, plus a little bit of blurring next to the ring finger and the edge of the jeans in the background.  

It is a lovely painting. Very fine detail.

31 minutes ago, TheVat said:

If I were a Victorian man, I would be excited by the image.  

Simmer down. She's thirteen.

Thanks.  If I understand; you attribute the 'texture' shown being the canvas; not to the painted clothing fabric.

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

 

It is a lovely painting. Very fine detail.

Simmer down. She's thirteen.

Thanks. I probably would not have made that joke if I had followed the link and seem the painting it was clipped from.  🐑

It is a technical tour de force.  

2 hours ago, Externet said:

If I understand; you attribute the 'texture' shown being the canvas; not to the painted clothing fabric.

You can see it under the skin as well as in the denim. I admit to being at a loss how the artist achieved that fabric texture.   

We don't know how many processes this image has been through to our devices. Some of the effects will probably be artifacts of those processes. JPeging tends to soften images as they are reduced in resolution.

Edited February 6, 20241 yr by StringJunky