on camera sharpening of pictures

curiousgeorge wrote in post #2275587
I'm sure you could have made the same pp adjustments to the JPG?

The sharpening and contrast I guess. However I would not have been able to extract that much detail from the shadows if it weren't for shooting in 16bit - the most important thing to me, as I did not have time to expose for the vegetation and the water.

I highly prefer to shoot JPEG and adjust my images as much as possible in-camera. With everything that I have going on in life, spending time post processing each shot that I take is unrealistic and would really be bad prioritization to me and my circumstances.

You CAN get stunning results from a Canon DSLR shooting JPEG, adjusting the in-camera settings to your preferences, adjusting for proper exposure and making sure you hold the camera steady. I am by no means a pixel peeper and also am not a fan of the more over-processed looking shots.

Some people seem to hold up their knowledge and use of PS as a badge of honor, whereas I would define my photographic success more by how LITTLE I have to use PS to adjust my images. One man's opinion on the topic.

same here... im no fan of post processing... I'll do my sharpening and saturation on the camera, I do sometimes shoot raw though

bauerman wrote in post #2275918
I highly prefer to shoot JPEG and adjust my images as much as possible in-camera.

You CAN get stunning results from a Canon DSLR shooting JPEG, adjusting the in-camera settings to your preferences, adjusting for proper exposure and making sure you hold the camera steady.

Thanks Bauerman, good to know.

Lately I've been shooting RAW for important pics and Ljpeg for quick snaps with parameters set to 2.

I've been asked to do some events and print on the spot, I was a little worried that the pics might not come out reall good, I know I'll need to play with the parameters and see what looks for my use but can you give a sample of the parameters you have set and gotten good results with straight from the camera to the printer?

Thanks, Cassandra.

bauerman wrote in post #2275918
Some people seem to hold up their knowledge and use of PS as a badge of honor, whereas I would define my photographic success more by how LITTLE I have to use PS to adjust my images. One man's opinion on the topic.

I totally agree! Surely, if one has to sharpen everything PP there must be something seriously wrong with your technique?!

John T wrote in post #2276219
I totally agree! Surely, if one has to sharpen everything PP there must be something seriously wrong with your technique?!

I would agree that if one can keep the shutter above 1/200 and shoot at an aperture of 5.6 to 11 then consistent sharpening should not be required. But when you stop down to f/32 and have the water hitting your tripod during a 5" exposure one cannot get away without specialised processing.

I do agree that its best to get everything done in camera but sometimes time does not allow and its easier to correct the mistakes in PS.

When I shoot in jpg mode, I use in camera sharpening of +1 or +2, and finish the image with the high pass filter method in PS, after the resize. Generally, I use this workflow for images that will be used on the web, not for prints.

I used to shoot in L JPEG + RAW but found that in-camera processing (especially sharpening) was a waste of time; a better job could always be done in post-processing. I have now dispensed comepletely with JPEG and shoot in RAW.

The only advantage I can see (IMHO) in using in-camera processing of JPEGS is if you are going to perform Pictbridge printing directly from the card.

If you trawl the threads here you will find that a lot of Pro's and experienced photographers are of the opinion that the less in-camera processing the better. Taken to its extreme you might just as well use a quality P & S camera.

Just my view.

I'm a JPEG shooter and I feel that in camera settings are paramount to my ability to meet deadlines. Shooting RAW is just plain silly for what I do, and the less time I spend in PP, the sooner I can turn in images.

John T wrote in post #2276219
I totally agree! Surely, if one has to sharpen everything PP there must be something seriously wrong with your technique?!

I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with ones technique -- the images from a digital camera are by nature soft because of the anti-aliasing filter. It's a question of whether you choose to do your Post Processing in Camera (by setting things like the sharpening parameter) or externally (i.e. with PhotoShop or your RAW Converter).

One gives you minimal control but is fast and means you can use the images from the camera as is. The other takes a little more effort but gives you better control over the process.

e-k

rabidcow wrote in post #2276426
I'm a JPEG shooter and I feel that in camera settings are paramount to my ability to meet deadlines. Shooting RAW is just plain silly for what I do, and the less time I spend in PP, the sooner I can turn in images.

I don't think anyone will disagree with you on that

I think it is a given that the potential to getter better images out of RAW files is there. Obviously though if your workflow doesn't allow for any external PP then your only option is to do all your PP in-camera.

e-k

Accentor wrote in post #2276399
If you trawl the threads here you will find that a lot of Pro's and experienced photographers are of the opinion that the less in-camera processing the better. Taken to its extreme you might just as well use a quality P & S camera.

Just my view.

I would consider myself a fairly "experienced photographer" and do not see the bang for the buck in shooting RAW and spending hours by the PC. Life is too short. I know many other "experienced photographers" that feel the exact same way.

There are many other advantages to a DSLR over a point and shoot besides sharpness and the need for post processing. You CAN take full advantage of a DSLR and its features over a P&S without being a Photoshop expert. I guarantee you that.

Let me put it to everyone this way, a photograph taken of my 4 year old son using JPEG and in-camera sharpening elicits NO LESS emotional response from the viewer of that photo (whether it be his mother, grandmother, cousin or whomever) than if the photo would have been taken using RAW and post processed for 20 minutes. I cannot explain my opinion on the subject any better than that.

bauerman wrote in post #2276539
I would consider myself a fairly "experienced photographer" and do not see the bang for the buck in shooting RAW and spending hours by the PC. Life is too short. I know many other "experienced photographers" that feel the exact same way.

To me the same kind of people who would have their own darkroom and do their own processing with film, would likely prefer to shoot RAW and do PP. There are always going to be exceptions to this of course and the "digital darkroom" has certainly made this form of post processing more accessible.

You could evoke a DIFFERENT emotional response though by modifying what the camera captured to what you see in your mind.

e-k

E-K wrote in post #2276625
You could evoke a DIFFERENT emotional response though by modifying what the camera captured to what you see in your mind.

e-k

The people that view the photographs of my children and family events do not look at the photos I share with any kind of critical eye. They don't care if the bokeh is pleasing, the rule of thirds was used in composition or if there is any barrel distortion visible. They could really care less if the photo is "tack sharp" or if maybe the white balance is off a little bit. They are very simply looking at my son or daughter.

I like to use DSLR's for the lack of shutter lag, the better viewfinder and other advantages over point and shoots. But I will never be one to post process my photos much if at all in most cases. I would prefer to spend effort to have better INPUT into the photographic tool rather than unceasingly worrying about the OUTPUT after the fact.

I still have things to learn about aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc... and that is much more interesting material to me than channel mixers, levels, unsharp mask, layers and everyting else Adobe thinks I should worry about.

Deadlines can be a good reason to use jpg, but not the only reason. Raw + post processing in an image editor is just a tool, just like using jpg and in camera parameters. If I can get an image like this or this using in cam settings, then what advantage will raw give me? Well, I will be able to make the processing decisions after I click the shutter, but chances are, those decisions would result in the same final output. Now, let's say I am getting paid for the images (for the pottery, I am). Time is money, and face it, a raw workflow - no matter how fast you are are - takes more time. If you can't get the results using jpg, then use raw. But you'll have more time to work on more things if you're more efficient in areas where the quality difference won't matter. Those images are made under controlled lighting, won't be printed large - if at all printed - and are all basically the same setup save a reflector or gobo here and there. These were both shot in the same run with about 60 other items. After shooting, post work - which included a crop and/or resize along with some high pass sharpening - took about 10 minutes total. Now this picture was shot in raw, and utilized many different post processing techniques. I spent about 2 hours total, over the course of a few days on it. I could have probably gotten close to it in jpg, but the flower might have died before I figured what settings would give me what I wanted. The right tool for the right person, with the right skills, for the right job. One is no better than the other, just more appropriate for the user or job.