on camera sharpening of pictures

gcobb wrote in post #2245668
Props to you. A photographer will make maximum use of the camera settings and rely less on software to get the image where it should be. But that's just a sore spot with me.

I agree with you WRT exposure, focus, composition, and the like

However, the question here was with respect to camera sharpening versus post-processing sharpening. In both cases you are relying on software (either the cameras or your PP software). In one case you have more control than the other.

In camera sharpening is convenient and no PP, at least for sharpening, is required.

The issues with in camera sharpening is that it just applies it generically to the image. For noisy shots the noise is going to be sharpened along with everything else. If this was done in PP instead you could use some form of smart sharpening (i.e. sharpening only the edges) to get a better overall effect. There's simply no way you could do this in the camera itself (well okay you could reduce the noise by increasing the light )

e-k

Fred Miranda reportedly sells a great Intellisharpen plug in for Photoshop, also.

Photoshop?
That's that Gimp-like program for Windows and Mac isn't it?

bphillips330,
Try this: Take a photo with your normal settings, then take the same photo with your cameras sharpening higher, then take the same photo again with the sharpening and saturation higher. Print all three photos at 4 x 6" or 8 x 10" (if you don't mind wasting the ink and paper ), and see the difference yourself. Then you as the photographer can make the choice

As Keith R stated many posts ago, in-camera setting do not affect RAW images.

I tried for a while shooting RAW+Fine JPEG (fills a 2GB card up in minutes!!) with moderate sharpening and a slight increase in contrast in the STANDARD photo setting. I process now using mainly DPP (only using Photoshop Elements for adding text, etc) and could never get the original JPEG's up to the same quality as the processed RAW files.

I read elsewhere that in-camera sharpening, etc. is a waste of time so have now re-set to default settings.

Using RAW is so good that I have now almost dispensed with JPEG captures.

Colin

Accentor wrote in post #2247291
As Keith R stated many posts ago, in-camera setting do not affect RAW images.

I tried for a while shooting RAW+Fine JPEG (fills a 2GB card up in minutes!!) with moderate sharpening and a slight increase in contrast in the STANDARD photo setting. I process now using mainly DPP (only using Photoshop Elements for adding text, etc) and could never get the original JPEG's up to the same quality as the processed RAW files.

I read elsewhere that in-camera sharpening, etc. is a waste of time so have now re-set to default settings.

Using RAW is so good that I have now almost dispensed with JPEG captures.

Colin

Thanks for all the advice. Sorry to cause a little argument. Art is very subjective and each artist has there own ideas. Lets see if I can open a can of worms here! I would shoot raw a little playing with it. I do like the advantages of having all info and not 1/10 or it or so(compressed jpg finest resolution.) The biggest issue i have found is SIZE!!! I bought a 1 gig card. I can get 200 or so with jpg and 100 if i am lucky in raw.

A majority of my pictures will be of my son and wife around the house. Fine for jpg i guess. When i go out and take more "artsy" pictures then shoot raw. Short of buying 5 1 gig cards. which gets pricey, and the pain of post processing to compress them to jpg with my computer. I know i can batch process them. (My wife is not as computer savy when it comes to photographs, and she wants to snap picture, put it in computer, look at it, and print it. )

I have a cd burner that is portable that i can put my card in and it burns to cd. (fotoshow) It was great when using 256 meg cards with 5 megapixle point and shoot. but when blasting through 1 gig cards that could take a while. I have seen alot of people are using some sort of portible hard drive that the compact flash card plugs into and backs up?? What brands are good so i can check on price.

here is the can of worms, Raw vs jpg. I want to shoot raw, but so much for my wife to do to be able to view them and card fills up very quick.

Having taken some night shots that were differing exposures and flash settings, and found that the one that was almost black in RAW but by plussing up the exposure with post processing became the truest to the real image I vertually NEVER shoot anything but RAW. It takes a bit more time and discipline, but you can do far more error rescuing off camera with RAW than you can do with a duff jpeg image. If it is a critical shot, I want the best chance of recovery.

To respond to the real question, I prefer to use Unsharp Mask rather than rely on the in camera settings.... which as has been said earlier are only present in preview on the camera anyway. If you are shooting RAW. Make friends with post editing and you will get much better results.

Turn off the burst mode. The card won't fill up as fast.

bphillips330 wrote in post #2247787
Thanks for all the advice. Sorry to cause a little argument. Art is very subjective and each artist has there own ideas. Lets see if I can open a can of worms here! I would shoot raw a little playing with it. I do like the advantages of having all info and not 1/10 or it or so(compressed jpg finest resolution.) The biggest issue i have found is SIZE!!! I bought a 1 gig card. I can get 200 or so with jpg and 100 if i am lucky in raw.

A majority of my pictures will be of my son and wife around the house. Fine for jpg i guess. When i go out and take more "artsy" pictures then shoot raw. Short of buying 5 1 gig cards. which gets pricey, and the pain of post processing to compress them to jpg with my computer. I know i can batch process them. (My wife is not as computer savy when it comes to photographs, and she wants to snap picture, put it in computer, look at it, and print it. )

I have a cd burner that is portable that i can put my card in and it burns to cd. (fotoshow) It was great when using 256 meg cards with 5 megapixle point and shoot. but when blasting through 1 gig cards that could take a while. I have seen alot of people are using some sort of portible hard drive that the compact flash card plugs into and backs up?? What brands are good so i can check on price.

here is the can of worms, Raw vs jpg. I want to shoot raw, but so much for my wife to do to be able to view them and card fills up very quick.

I would say that for "domestic" shots (I won't use the term "snap", but you know what I mean) JPEG (Fine Quality) is perfect and you can still do a lot to it in post-photo processing.

I have never used a portable storage device but I hear good things; I know people who download to their iPod or other MP3 player hard-disk. I have three Sandisk Extreme III 2GB cards and a Delkin 1GB card (the latter came with the camera) which see me through the day. I shoot mostly birds and a lot of "in-flight" shots require continuous shooting mode which is what eats up the card capacity, and the reason for using the type of Sandisk card I use is because of the fast write speed. A more meticulous approach to reviewing shots in-camera and discarding "duffers" would cut back on card use, but there isn't always the time.

Take heart, it is still better then using film!!!

I just want to say a couple things about sharpening...

You can get better results, by sharpening on your computer, especially when you run a good filter to do it. It is not the best practice to shapen in your camera and then go and sharpen it more in post processing. The rule of thumb for sharpening, is to only do it once. So it depends on what is better for you, convenience or the best results.

I shoot in RAW, although I do have the incamera parameters set to; normal contrast, mid-high sat, high sharpening. Primaraly because when I view the images with the raw converter in zoom browser I can see what the image looks like with those settings - usually I turn them off and transfer the image to PS. But it’s less embarrassing for the family to view your pics with the jpeg parameters applied.

Here's an example of why I shoot RAW, and make adjustments in PS. The following images are displayed in this order: RAW(unprocessed), JPEG, RAW(processed):

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

JRT wrote in post #2244855
I completely disagree. When set up properly, the in-camera settings will yield awesome results. Now, if you want to create images that are beyond natural looking then post processing will come into play and it can be fun but it should not be a crutch for not getting the sharpness correct in the camera. To suggest over and over to rely on PS for sharpening is to ignore those of us who do get it tack sharp right from the camera. Steady hand, hand holdable shutter speeds, good glass and light and you can get tack sharp pictures from the camera.

I agree.

I shoot only JPG and have in-camera sharpening set to 4. This allows me to print many images with no PP at all.

For really nice images, or ones that are misfocused or soft for whatever reason I will do some sharpening using USM.

Even in JPG, on my 30D, i shoot the neutral picture styles. And in 10D i shot on neutral settings. If i really needed to do a shoot without PP, then i'd use parameters. Better to have more options generally though.

illy wrote in post #2275147
I shoot in RAW, although I do have the incamera parameters set to; normal contrast, mid-high sat, high sharpening. Primaraly because when I view the images with the raw converter in zoom browser I can see what the image looks like with those settings - usually I turn them off and transfer the image to PS. But it’s less embarrassing for the family to view your pics with the jpeg parameters applied.

Here's an example of why I shoot RAW, and make adjustments in PS. The following images are displayed in this order: RAW(unprocessed), JPEG, RAW(processed):

I'm sure you could have made the same pp adjustments to the JPG?

illy wrote in post #2275147
Here's an example of why I shoot RAW, and make adjustments in PS. The following images are displayed in this order: RAW(unprocessed), JPEG, RAW(processed):

Hi,

I must admit I prefer the JPEG image. In my opinion, the third image looks "overprocessed". To me, it looks synthetic and unnatural In real life, the background is never in sharp focus (particularly when, as in this case, the point of focus is on something in the foreground/middle distance) - the human eye just doesn't work that way and that is what gives the illusion of depth to a picture.

Just my personal opinion.