on camera sharpening of pictures

Back to the original discussion.
I never sharpen in camera, although I'm not saying it hasen't any merit, I find it's not as controlled or delicate enough for my needs.

Sharpening (normally via USM in PS) is the very last thing I do on an image, particularly as the amount of sharpening depends upon output.
For example, an image for this site, I would resize the image to the relevant dimensions , then apply USM at amount around 25-30, radius 1, threshold 0. and then save for web.

If I was going to print a 20x16 image, I would re-size first, then USM at a much higher level than previous, then print the image.

Needless to say, all my images are saved as tiff files unsharpened, only applying the relevant sharpening at output.

Using in-camera sharpening, you don't have this fine control.

Since you are interested in fine control over sharpening, thisinfo detailing a 3 pass method may interest you.

jfrancho wrote in post #2277221
Since you are interested in fine control over sharpening, thisinfo detailing a 3 pass method may interest you.

Thanks for that, good read.

liza wrote in post #2244965
Not if you shoot RAW. DSLR's are not point and shoot cameras. Photoshop is not a crutch but rather a tool for those who care to invest the time and energy to do things correctly.....

That is so wrong and arrogant. A lot of PROFESSIONALS, as in PJ and Sports shoorts, will not use PS at all. It has nothing to do with the right way or the wrong way. When you shoot for a living you take pictures and try to make them as good as you can directly from the camera. Off course some pros do it othervise by that's my take on it.

E-K wrote in post #2276818
Right, I still shoot raw because I have a hard enough time remembering to check my ISO so I leave it set there all the time unless I'm really crunched for storage space.

e-k

I belive i already know the awnser to this, how to frase this, i would still think that iso setting would still be important for exposer and shutter speed. If you had it at iso 800 or 1600 i belive it is and you took it in raw, wouldn't the "noise" be higher than if you were say at 100 or 400, even in raw. you said that you forget to change your iso. I know if raw when you convert to tiff or whatever, you can change whitebalance, sharpening, saturation, i did not think, nor do i think it is even possible to change iso as it is how picture was shot along with f stop and shutter speed.

bphillips330 wrote in post #2277580
I belive i already know the awnser to this, how to frase this, i would still think that iso setting would still be important for exposer and shutter speed. If you had it at iso 800 or 1600 i belive it is and you took it in raw, wouldn't the "noise" be higher than if you were say at 100 or 400, even in raw. you said that you forget to change your iso. I know if raw when you convert to tiff or whatever, you can change whitebalance, sharpening, saturation, i did not think, nor do i think it is even possible to change iso as it is how picture was shot along with f stop and shutter speed.

You can remove more noise in raw than you can with jpeg, as the data is still stored in 16bit format.

illy wrote in post #2277651
You can remove more noise in raw than you can with jpeg, as the data is still stored in 16bit format.

More, maybe. Probably. But more importantly, better. Since NR is essentially a micro-localized color adjustment, applying this type of edit to a 16 bpc file made from a 12 bpc raw file is going to give better results. It may go without saying, if you're going to do anything to a jpg, convert it to 16 bpc. I've heard so many say it doesn't matter, but it's simply not true. One look at the histogram will confirm this.

bphillips330 wrote in post #2277580
I belive i already know the awnser to this, how to frase this, i would still think that iso setting would still be important for exposer and shutter speed. If you had it at iso 800 or 1600 i belive it is and you took it in raw, wouldn't the "noise" be higher than if you were say at 100 or 400, even in raw. you said that you forget to change your iso. I know if raw when you convert to tiff or whatever, you can change whitebalance, sharpening, saturation, i did not think, nor do i think it is even possible to change iso as it is how picture was shot along with f stop and shutter speed.

I think I came across wrong. I'm not saying that I shoot raw because I forget to change the ISO and I feel that as long as I'm shooting RAW ISO won't matter (it does).

What I was trying to say, tongue in cheek, was that I leave it set to RAW when I turn the camera off because chances are I would forget to check it when I started shooting again. Checking the ISO before I shoot a series is now second nature, but I still like to minimise the number of things I have to change when trying to get a grab shot.

Sorry for the confusion

e-k

I shoot raw all the time. Flash cards are cheap these days - 5 or 6 one Gig units generally are sufficient for a days shoot. And I like raw because I don't always know when I'm going to get that 'important' image that I need to process or save a bit. More latitude for post processing IMO. I also understand the work flow issues of time meeting expectations for clients, I just don't have those types of shoots (yet).

All of that being said, I am finding that with CS2 and ACR pictures can be ready to go without really getting into CS2 - it's all done in ACR. Using the batch capability of Bridge also speeds the work flow. But in the end, it will be the user's preference, what they are comfortable with.

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.

BINGO

Bosscat wrote in post #2279125
BINGO

So knowing how to use a tool means you can't get by without it? Not so! Do you use the meter in the camera or do you use the sunny-16 rule for exposure?

Illy said this
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.
(sorry did not know how to do quote without big pics )


I am confused as to why she turns off settings .If you shoot raw the setting in the camera does not matter .I just have mine set for default and shoot raw . Then make a tiff . I guess I am just wondering why does she do that step by turning off settings ?

The thumbnail that the LCD preview displays is an embedded jpg that uses in camera params as processing instructions.

Most of the time I shoot in RAW. Then, I'll get the photos worth keeping and turn them into .tiff's. Once I have done all that, I just run them through photoshop (batch processing).

I created an action of 2 USM passes. First is (300/0.4/0) and the second is (15/75/0). The first makes the image sharper, while the second increases local contrast.

I'll print some, then burn the converted tiffs and RAW's to a DVD, to save space on my hard drive.

Andrew.

jfrancho wrote in post #2279364
The thumbnail that the LCD preview displays is an embedded jpg that uses in camera params as processing instructions.

And oh, BTW, guess what that little histogram that you are basing your exposure adjustments on is based on?