-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Sharpening...good or bad...discuss (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mjmw
- Start date
johnportsmouth
Member
Sharpening is a must in my opinion for any and i mean ANY digital camera user.
I myself own Minolta 5D's and i use smart sharpening in CS 2. Previously to that i used unsharp mask but i now find smart sharpening fine for what i need at 75% and 1 pixel level. Using more sharpening in camera seems to me to make the pictures lose detail.
If the sharpening tools r used right they will only add to your image and not detract.
I myself own Minolta 5D's and i use smart sharpening in CS 2. Previously to that i used unsharp mask but i now find smart sharpening fine for what i need at 75% and 1 pixel level. Using more sharpening in camera seems to me to make the pictures lose detail.
If the sharpening tools r used right they will only add to your image and not detract.
BelgianPhil
-Hi, my name is Phil and i'm a user -Hi Phil!
johnrobinson said:
I agree 100% There is no substitute for getting it right in-camera.
Unfortunately some of us do not have the budget to buy the best lenses. (I know this all comes down to choices in life - but my wife didn't like the idea of having a baby, auctioning it on ebay and buying the 1Ds MkII and a Canon EF 1200 mm f/5.6L USM)
So (sometimes extensive) image correction is a fact of life and quite honestly something i don't think will completely go away with better equipment. Truth of the matter is that we want to get the most out of the equipment and the shots we have. Getting it right in the first place can save us a lot of time later on.
So, in conclusion: yes we must strive to get it right in the first place, but that will not make image manipulation and correction go away.
bpw
Well-known member
Yes we should, and I think most of us try to do that. But it’s really a matter of choice.johnrobinson said:
Digital images are soft – this is certainly the case with Canon cameras, due to the anti-aliasing filter used to reduce distortion. If the picture comes off the camera pin-sharp, then the camera is doing the sharpening. For most this is the best and easiest option, but some wish to have complete control over sharpening when post-processing and turn in-camera sharpening off (if the camera provides this option). This is much the same as your approach to contrast John.
By the way, I think your pictures are first-class John, and I’m sure they give newcomers to digital photography plenty of inspiration. They prove it very definitely isn’t about 1Dss and 600mm f4s and lengthy post-processing (including sharpening) with expensive software. It’s mainly about approach, technique, experience, etc.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Don't forget your beloved "Fill Light" function, John!johnrobinson said:
For what it's worth, I do much the same myself (using "Curves" in the main), and I'm pretty happy all in all, but I do wonder if there might be a better way, so I am enjoying this thread.
Aye! We demand that people start talking about "Paint Shop Proing" their pictures!
John, as a matter of interest, what in-camera sharpening settings are you using?
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
The need for sharpening to some extent comes back to the RAW v jpeg debate. It is my understanding that if you shoot in jpeg chances are the camera will do some auto sharpening but if you shoot in RAW the image will be unsharpened - (no doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong)
Cheers
Roy C.
Cheers
Roy C.
bpw
Well-known member
You need to check the manual I think. Sharpening is applied to RAW files in my current camera and was with my 10D. As to whether the conversion software keeps the sharpening? I've only used BreezeBrowser, which does keep it, but gives you the chance to change it.Roy C said:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Hi Roy,
you're right, but Paul makes a valid point.
I've done a bit more digging, having asked much the same question myself further up the thread.
Although sharpening paremeters etc aren't "embedded" in a RAW file the way they are in a jpeg out of the camera, the in-camera settings are sent with the RAW file as metadata.
Some software (DPP and Breezebrowser for example) can read and apply these settings at the conversion stage if we want.
This is from an Adobe forum:
you're right, but Paul makes a valid point.
I've done a bit more digging, having asked much the same question myself further up the thread.
Although sharpening paremeters etc aren't "embedded" in a RAW file the way they are in a jpeg out of the camera, the in-camera settings are sent with the RAW file as metadata.
Some software (DPP and Breezebrowser for example) can read and apply these settings at the conversion stage if we want.
This is from an Adobe forum:
Looks like Breezebrowser have been able to reverse engineer the Canon metadata so that their software can interpret it too.
Last edited:
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
johnrobinson said:
Hi John, I don't think anything said so far in this thread goes against getting it right in the first place. I prefer having the control over post-processing rather than rely on some unknown people in a lab somewhere. I look at the post-processing as part of the creative process and try to enjoy it.
Oh, by the way, what is wrong with 'photoshopping' an image? For better or worse, digital images mean that post processing now tends to be on a personal computer rather than in a lab. There isn't really any difference is there?
Cheers Mark.
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Hi Roy, as Keith says, you are almost right. You normally have the option to switch off the majority of the sharpening when shooting in JPEG but if you do that or add sharpening, it is applied to the image and difficult to change. RAW gives you the opportunity, should you wish, to adjust the settings including sharpening.
Which brings me back to the point John made earlier about getting it right in camera - I didn't used to have to worry about 'in camera' sharpening to counter the softening effects of the camera's recording device (i.e. film) when taking a photo, so I don't intend to start now!
Which brings me back to the point John made earlier about getting it right in camera - I didn't used to have to worry about 'in camera' sharpening to counter the softening effects of the camera's recording device (i.e. film) when taking a photo, so I don't intend to start now!
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
John just means the habit of using the brand name "Photoshop" to refer to any pp - he uses Paint Shop Pro very successfully, so by definition he never "photoshops" his pictures!mw_aurora said:
I use PSP myself, but I also happily "hoover", use a "biro" and "Google" the internet, so personally I'm not too bothered about people saying "Photoshop" when they mean image processing.
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Hi Mark,
I'm actually saying that Roy is completely right!
No in-camera settings are physically applied to a RAW file (I'm not entirely certain if that also applies to EV comp).
Rather, information about the camera settings are exported alongside the RAW file as metadata, so that - if required, and depending on the software being used - those camera settings can be applied as part of the RAW conversion process.
But the settings aren't "physically" (for want of a better word!) applied to the RAW file as it comes out of the camera, in the way they are to a jpeg from the camera.
I'm actually saying that Roy is completely right!
No in-camera settings are physically applied to a RAW file (I'm not entirely certain if that also applies to EV comp).
Rather, information about the camera settings are exported alongside the RAW file as metadata, so that - if required, and depending on the software being used - those camera settings can be applied as part of the RAW conversion process.
But the settings aren't "physically" (for want of a better word!) applied to the RAW file as it comes out of the camera, in the way they are to a jpeg from the camera.
Last edited:
SeanKP
Fledgling
Hi Mark
As I said above, I'm finding this topic fascinating and learning a lot but I do have some specific questions.
1. You've chosen Breezebrowser Pro as your RAW conversion software and Keith has chosen Bibble, both presumably at additional expense. Why have you chosen to forego the free Adobe converter in favour of these programs? Are they better? If so, in what way? If it is in terms of workflow, I can live with ACR but if they produce better image quality I will want to take a look at them.
2. Do you apply Neat Image to all of your images? I've tended to only use Neat Image on partuicularly noisy images and only after I have done my processing in PS, not least because I only have the free version and I have wanted to postpone saving to JPEG until the last possible minute.
3. From where do you get the correct profiles for Neat Image? I have downloaded some from the Neat Image site for the 1DS MarkII and the 350D but they seem to be for all ISOs but not for all shutter speeds. Does that matter, ie will the noise reduction be incorrect if you put an image through a profile that says it is for a shutter speed of 1/200 when it was shot at 1/100?
4. I have always applied USM and then re-sized. Is this the wrong thing to do?
Thanks in advance.
Sean
As I said above, I'm finding this topic fascinating and learning a lot but I do have some specific questions.
1. You've chosen Breezebrowser Pro as your RAW conversion software and Keith has chosen Bibble, both presumably at additional expense. Why have you chosen to forego the free Adobe converter in favour of these programs? Are they better? If so, in what way? If it is in terms of workflow, I can live with ACR but if they produce better image quality I will want to take a look at them.
2. Do you apply Neat Image to all of your images? I've tended to only use Neat Image on partuicularly noisy images and only after I have done my processing in PS, not least because I only have the free version and I have wanted to postpone saving to JPEG until the last possible minute.
3. From where do you get the correct profiles for Neat Image? I have downloaded some from the Neat Image site for the 1DS MarkII and the 350D but they seem to be for all ISOs but not for all shutter speeds. Does that matter, ie will the noise reduction be incorrect if you put an image through a profile that says it is for a shutter speed of 1/200 when it was shot at 1/100?
4. I have always applied USM and then re-sized. Is this the wrong thing to do?
Thanks in advance.
Sean
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Back to the original question...
While it is broadly accepted that we need to apply some sharpening, if only to get over the effect of the AA filter on the sensor, I must admit a strong preference for images that don't look sharpened.
My favourite pictures in the Gallery at the moment tend to be those by Nigel Pye, precisely because they don't look like they've obviously been subject to sharpening.
They look "own eyes" sharp, but no more than that and - to me - are more natural-looking as a result.
That's a look I aspire to.
While it is broadly accepted that we need to apply some sharpening, if only to get over the effect of the AA filter on the sensor, I must admit a strong preference for images that don't look sharpened.
My favourite pictures in the Gallery at the moment tend to be those by Nigel Pye, precisely because they don't look like they've obviously been subject to sharpening.
They look "own eyes" sharp, but no more than that and - to me - are more natural-looking as a result.
That's a look I aspire to.
Last edited:
bpw
Well-known member
Keith Reeder said:Hi Mark,
I'm actually saying that Roy is completely right!
No in-camera settings are physically applied to a RAW file (I'm not entirely certain if that also applies to EV comp).
Rather, information about the camera settings are exported alongside the RAW file as metadata, so that - if required, and depending on the software being used - those camera settings can be applied as part of the RAW conversion process.
But the settings aren't "physically" (for want of a better word!) applied to the RAW file as it comes out of the camera, in the way they are to a jpeg from the camera.
I agree with your logic Keith, but I’m sure the question from Roy concerns whether these in-camera settings will influence the end result when shooting with RAW. If the photographer converts RAW files in software that retains this information, whether the information is physically attached to the RAW image or not is academic, as the information then will be attached to the converted image.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Hi Paul,bpw said:
Roy seems to be trying to confirm his understanding that a RAW file is just that - ie, raw, and without any "processing", and I'm agreeing with him.
The in-camera settings are not part of the RAW file the way they are with a jpeg, and will only affect the RAW file if you use certain software, and then make specific processing decisions to apply those settings.
I don't think it's acedemic, because it seems important that people understand that they won't generally get the effect of the Picture Style or other settings they've chosen in their RAW unless they're using specific software, because those settings aren't in the RAW but with it.
As a Bibble user I would be disappointed - and would probably think something was wrong - if I was choosing a Picture Style in the belief that I would see its effect in the RAWs I was processing in Bibble, because as we've noted, Bibble can't "see" the Picture Style metadata.
They don't exist in Bibble terms, because they aren't in the RAW data file.
It isn't (IMHO) an acedemic point, becuase
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Keith Reeder said:Hi Mark,
I'm actually saying that Roy is completely right!
No in-camera settings are physically applied to a RAW file (I'm not entirely certain if that also applies to EV comp).
And I was saying he is almost right
Exposure comp is applied and is the base exposure you adjust in RAW processing.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Yeah, but Roy was talking about sharpening settings, so he's completely right..!mw_aurora said:And I was saying he is almost right
Exposure comp is applied and is the base exposure you adjust in RAW processing.
Apart from exposure information, a RAW file is just that - raw image data, with no software tweaking incorporated (and exposure info isn't "software tweaking", but is as much a fundemental part of the picture as shutter speed and ISO).
I like this phrase from Wikipedia, which sums things up nicely:
wikipedia said:
Last edited:
mjmw
formally known as mw_aurora
Hi Sean
1. I chose Breezebrowser Pro (BBP) having fought with DPP, tried out C1 and a couple of others. I have found BBP fast, acurate and consistantly produces good results. Browsing and sorting through hundreds of images is simple and fast too. I also use their downloading tool as well which is fantastic. I have not tried Adobe Bridge, but heard that it is very good too.
2 & 3. Neatimage - yes, to 99% of my images. It is the first step when I open a TIFF in CS2 (I have the full 8bit version so use as a plugin - much faster and easier in the workflow). I just use the profiles that you download from their website. I sometimes, vary rarely, use selective noise reduction in CS2 (i.e. select an area and use the built in filters) if neat image is too destructive. I personally have not got too into noise reduction - something I intend to learn more about.
4. There is nothing wrong with applying USM before resizing, but the process to change the size of the image uses an algorithm to reduce the number of pixels to represent the same thing (if that makes sense), so this will usually cause the image to appear softer. On the other hand, cropping does not actually cause the image to be softer, although it may appear softer because you are in effect 'zooming in' on the image. I would always suggest applying some level of sharpening after re-sizing. There is a chance that applying sharpening to the whole image before resizing will introduce nasties into the final image (for example blocky, noisy backgrounds).
HTH! Cheers Mark.
1. I chose Breezebrowser Pro (BBP) having fought with DPP, tried out C1 and a couple of others. I have found BBP fast, acurate and consistantly produces good results. Browsing and sorting through hundreds of images is simple and fast too. I also use their downloading tool as well which is fantastic. I have not tried Adobe Bridge, but heard that it is very good too.
2 & 3. Neatimage - yes, to 99% of my images. It is the first step when I open a TIFF in CS2 (I have the full 8bit version so use as a plugin - much faster and easier in the workflow). I just use the profiles that you download from their website. I sometimes, vary rarely, use selective noise reduction in CS2 (i.e. select an area and use the built in filters) if neat image is too destructive. I personally have not got too into noise reduction - something I intend to learn more about.
4. There is nothing wrong with applying USM before resizing, but the process to change the size of the image uses an algorithm to reduce the number of pixels to represent the same thing (if that makes sense), so this will usually cause the image to appear softer. On the other hand, cropping does not actually cause the image to be softer, although it may appear softer because you are in effect 'zooming in' on the image. I would always suggest applying some level of sharpening after re-sizing. There is a chance that applying sharpening to the whole image before resizing will introduce nasties into the final image (for example blocky, noisy backgrounds).
HTH! Cheers Mark.
Last edited:
Similar threads
