How Sharp should a RAW file be?

So I got a new lens. A Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC and have been having fun and getting a bit irritate at the same time. First off, I am really learning how shallow DOF is at 2.8 so I know that is a big part of my learning curve.

Because I have missed so many shots I thought I'd rule out equipment trouble and make sure it's just my technique. Then I found this article: http://www.cambridgein​colour.com/tutorials/R​AW-file-format.htm and thought, well, maybe it's my processing, too.

Honestly, I was not expecting to sharpen hardly at all but I find that with no sharpening the photos are just so/so. I took some shot of test charts with the camera on a table using flash (however, my flash should have been higher so they were underexposed - guess I have to adjust fec with ettl on my camera) and they don't impress me much at any f-stop. But is that just my ignorance of RAW files?

It depends on the camera and how strong its anti-aliasing filter is. With no sharpening the images from your 60D will look a bit soft when viewed at 100%.

The following may not work for your camera (you could need a bit more or a bit less), but if you use Lightroom try the following for sharpening: Amount = 60, Radius = 0.9, Detail = 25. If the image was shot at higher ISO I always add a bit of Masking (often I use a setting of 10) to avoid sharpening the noise.

Thanks, Bob, for your reply. I have so much more to learn! Is the strength of an anti-aliasing filter usually listed in camera specs? How does one know if their camera does well or not?

I tried what you suggested on one of my test chart shots. It's at 200mm/2.8/100 iso. Which is said to be the softest for my lens.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

NewCreation wrote in post #16136052
Thanks, Bob, for your reply. I have so much more to learn! Is the strength of an anti-aliasing filter usually listed in camera specs? How does one know if their camera does well or not?

I tried what you suggested on one of my test chart shots. It's at 200mm/2.8/100 iso. Which is said to be the softest for my lens.

Curious: Did you shoot this handheld? What shutter speed?

I don't sharpen images, they come out incredibly sharp (D700 with Nikon 24-70/70-200/16-35). When I shot Canon I had to sharpen a lot because it the focus system was rubbish - this is before 5D3.

The anti aliasing filter and resolution have been the things that required more or less sharpening.
My 40D required more than my 7D. Once I shot with the 5DII, I knew that was the sensor for me. My 5DII and 5DIII require much less sharpening.

NewCreation wrote in post #16136052
Thanks, Bob, for your reply. I have so much more to learn! Is the strength of an anti-aliasing filter usually listed in camera specs? How does one know if their camera does well or not?

I tried what you suggested on one of my test chart shots. It's at 200mm/2.8/100 iso. Which is said to be the softest for my lens.

I would suggest watching these video tutorials:
http://en.elephorm.com …de/lightroom%20​sharpening
especially those titled Input Sharpening: Basics, Input Sharpening: Amount and Radius, and Input Sharpening: Detail, Masking and Beginning Workflow.

The exact settings to use for input sharpening will vary both from shot to shot (but not so much as you can't have a default that works for most) and between sensors (so that you may need different defaults for different cameras). My prefered method starts with the sharpening zerod while I set the NR. Then I apply my default sharpening: 60/1.0/25/100. Although I tend to use quite a high amount, 60, I also use high amounts of masking, starting at 100 and bringing it down till it looks right. Saying that 80 would be a very low setting that is not used too often. I'm shooting with an old 20D and would have to work up new defaults if I had a new camera, it's just a matter of plwying with the sliders to learn the amounts that will work both of you and your camera.

Alan

drvnbysound wrote in post #16136264
Curious: Did you shoot this handheld? What shutter speed?

1/30 sitting on my counter with vc off using live view and a wireless remote. Thoughts on my results? Is this the best I can get with this lens/camera combo?

windpig wrote in post #16136348
The anti aliasing filter and resolution have been the things that required more or less sharpening.
My 40D required more than my 7D. Once I shot with the 5DII, I knew that was the sensor for me. My 5DII and 5DIII require much less sharpening.

My goal is to get full frame one day. I will make sure that I am making a more informed decision when I purchase my next camera. I purchased the 60d used as an upgrade from my xsi.

tim wrote in post #16136284
I don't sharpen images, they come out incredibly sharp (D700 with Nikon 24-70/70-200/16-35). When I shot Canon I had to sharpen a lot because it the focus system was rubbish - this is before 5D3.

All stuff I will be educating myself on before my next purchase. Thanks

tzalman wrote in post #16136765
I would suggest watching these video tutorials:
http://en.elephorm.com …de/lightroom%20​sharpening
especially those titled Input Sharpening: Basics, Input Sharpening: Amount and Radius, and Input Sharpening: Detail, Masking and Beginning Workflow.

Thank you. I will do that.

BigAl007 wrote in post #16136847
The exact settings to use for input sharpening will vary both from shot to shot (but not so much as you can't have a default that works for most) and between sensors (so that you may need different defaults for different cameras). My prefered method starts with the sharpening zerod while I set the NR. Then I apply my default sharpening: 60/1.0/25/100. Although I tend to use quite a high amount, 60, I also use high amounts of masking, starting at 100 and bringing it down till it looks right. Saying that 80 would be a very low setting that is not used too often. I'm shooting with an old 20D and would have to work up new defaults if I had a new camera, it's just a matter of plwying with the sliders to learn the amounts that will work both of you and your camera.

Alan

Thanks. I am glad to hear that sharpening is required. I read so much about folks going on about how sharp a lens is. Then I purchased my first pricey lens and, of course, pixel peeped and didn't see sharpness in my raw files with no sharpening applied. It's good to know that it's standard to sharpen.

Post a 100% crop of a "real life" image of the point that's (supposed to be) in focus…

René Damkot wrote in post #16137077
Post a 100% crop of a "real life" image of the point that's (supposed to be) in focus…

This is where I was going with...

drvnbysound wrote in post #16136264
Curious: Did you shoot this handheld? What shutter speed?

Assuming that everything was completely locked down, I would have assumed that it would have been sharper than posted. That being said, there are plenty of unknowns as well... how the image was processed, when (if any) was sharpening applied. Then considering how resizing, compression, etc. can also effect the sharpness when uploading to the web.

Personally, I would be using something like this as my baseline for comparison:
https://www.flickr.com …amronsp70200mmf​28divcusd/
All of these have been tagged with "Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 Di VC USD" thus should all have been taken with that lens. If you are not familiar with Flickr, this can be found in the lower right hand corner of the page. If you hover over the lens information you can choose to view all images from a particular user using that lens, or ALL users who have posted images using that lens.

René Damkot wrote in post #16137077
Post a 100% crop of a "real life" image of the point that's (supposed to be) in focus…

OK

drvnbysound wrote in post #16137269
This is where I was going with...

Assuming that everything was completely locked down, I would have assumed that it would have been sharper than posted. That being said, there are plenty of unknowns as well... how the image was processed, when (if any) was sharpening applied. Then considering how resizing, compression, etc. can also effect the sharpness when uploading to the web.

Personally, I would be using something like this as my baseline for comparison:
https://www.flickr.com …amronsp70200mmf​28divcusd/
All of these have been tagged with "Tamron 70-200 F/2.8 Di VC USD" thus should all have been taken with that lens. If you are not familiar with Flickr, this can be found in the lower right hand corner of the page. If you hover over the lens information you can choose to view all images from a particular user using that lens, or ALL users who have posted images using that lens.

I am beginning to understand that saying "that lens is so sharp" is really quite a misleading statement...at least for me. What I am learning is that camera + lens + processing + user technique = good sharp image or not.

Here is an image I believe I have gotten the focus correct. The second, I believe I got the focus wrong and actually focused on the nose. duh!

Processed with lightroom

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

More often than not I find technique or a variation of it to be the case.

For example, in the first image you posted above your shutter speed is less than 1/focal length; 1/100, shot at 109mm. Using a shutter speed of 1/focal length is a rule of thumb, I try to double that when possible, especially when shooting people.

In the second shot you actually were closer to double (1/200 @129mm). That said, how certain are you that neither you or the subject moved between the time you focused and when you pressed the shutter button? Additionally, are you using a single focus point that is placed over the eye of the subject or focusing and recomposing? If you are doing the latter, realize the movement you are making to recompose... and consider the minimal depth of field under your conditions; you may have perfectly focused on the eye and moved enough to cause the focal plane to shift.

NewCreation wrote in post #16137309
I am beginning to understand that saying "that lens is so sharp" is really quite a misleading statement...at least for me. What I am learning is that camera + lens + processing + user technique = good sharp image or not.

Now that's the real truth!

drvnbysound wrote in post #16137335
More often than not I find technique or a variation of it to be the case.

For example, in the first image you posted above your shutter speed is less than 1/focal length; 1/100, shot at 109mm. Using a shutter speed of 1/focal length is a rule of thumb, I try to double that when possible, especially when shooting people.

In the second shot you actually were closer to double (1/200 @129mm). That said, how certain are you that neither you or the subject moved between the time you focused and when you pressed the shutter button? Additionally, are you using a single focus point that is placed over the eye of the subject or focusing and recomposing? If you are doing the latter, realize the movement you are making to recompose... and consider the minimal depth of field under your conditions; you may have perfectly focused on the eye and moved enough to cause the focal plane to shift.

I do realize the rules of thumb for shutter speed and focal length. And for me on a crop body is even more. I guess I was relying too much on VC. I am not sure of anything for these shots as far as technique. I have only begun to do shoots for other people and my nerves definitely get the best of me! And yes, I have come to realize from my many missed shots that I have an issue with focus when I recompose at such a shallow dof. I had one shot where the lower right corner of the photo was the most in focus. I can improve technique and processing. Actually, I like the challenge. I just want to be sure it is me and not the equipment, which I cannot fix. From what I am hearing from comments on my pics is that it looks like a combination of my technique and ignorance of processing.

Thank you for your input.