10D In Camera Sharpening

[whitema]

I've had my 10D for about 4 months now. Love it.

Conducted numerous tests & have it sussed out in many areas. What I'd like to know are everyone's comments on the pro's & con's of IN CAMERA SHARPENING & CONTRAST SETTINGS.

I realise highlights blow out in harsh lighting & try to avoid this at all costs.

But I invite comments re: +1 stop of sharpening & contrast in relation to ISO rating (especially IS) 400 & 800.

I shoot weddings & have been using it especially for available light in churches, but also for everything else as well at times, including macro, landscapes, portraits, etc.

Up till now I've left all parameters on zero & worked the images in photoshop using +10 contrast & unsharp mask.

Images are soft but by the time I'm finished with them they blow 35mm out of the water & in fact MF as well. I've just sold all my Bronica gear - no need for it now.

Go for it guys.

[Vegas Poboy]

I personally leave all editing to Adobe elements or PS7. I do have some custom setting set but I rather adjust my pics on a full size color monitor than looking aon the back of the camera.

[lightandlife]

whitema wrote:
Images are soft but by the time I'm finished with them they blow 35mm out of the water & in fact MF as well. I've just sold all my Bronica gear - no need for it now.

Go for it guys.



So the medium format is dead!

The large format will linger a while, but will die also as DSLR reachs 20 mega pixels.

[ssim]

I certainly don't believe that medium format is dead. I have a Pentax 6X7, Pentax 645AFD and a Mamiya RB67. If I'm after a shot that I want to enlarge beyond 11x14 I go to one of these cameras. Perhaps when we get to the prosumer camera to 10+ MP at a reasonable price, this medium may start to slip.

With respect to the original question, I do all of sharpening and contrast settings in Photoshop.

[whitema]

Thanks for all your comments. I'll be doing some further testing soon re: in camera sharpening. Already have when I first purchased the camera, but I only looked at them briefly.

In regards to Medium Format I encourage people who still shoot in this format to continue. I loved the feel of the Bronica & the thrill of both loading & changing film backs, the clunk of the mirror, etc. However, I found it very restrictve at times and couldn't guarantee image sharpness below 1/60 sec. And even then it was sometimes suspect. I pride myself on my steadiness of technique, etc but I found the mirror slap to be a major problem. Especially true in the Pentax 67.

With the 10D I can shoot available light shots down to 1/15 sec with a 50mm f/1.4 lens if I do everything right and can guarantee every shot at 1/30 sec with good posture, etc.

Add to that the cleanness of the images and the ability to produce superb black & white images & also maintain the same shot in colour and I'm a very happy chappy.

I have easily produced better prints than MF up to A3 so far with all the luxuries of having total control over the image from beginning to end. Sharpening in PS is nowhere near the problem I've had with prints scanned at 4000ppi. You don't get all that noise, white flecks, and other little beasties attacking the image.

I'd still like further comments re: IN CAMERA SHARPENING so let me have it shutterbugs.

[lightandlife]

whitema wrote:
I'd still like further comments re: IN CAMERA SHARPENING so let me have it shutterbugs.


I am against it. You can do all enhancements afterwards. You want to get unvarnished truth first, and then you can add cosmetics to suit your taste.

[SemieE]

Booya! Link. (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/digitalphotography/learnmore/fixit/sharpening.asp)

Read that. I've adopted that exact process myself and it's been working great. (I turn sharpening off when converting the RAW and sharpen my image once before saving the final copy. I then sharpen again when I resize to post online.)

Edit: To make it more clear, I feel that photoshop can do a much better job than the camera can. You have so much more control over contrast and sharpening that way.