on camera sharpening of pictures

E-K wrote in post #2277038
Well technically a JPEG always has some in-camera software processing

e-k

Sure, but you can't do anything about that; what I meant by "manipulation" is the user further enhancing sharpening, contrast, etc. within the camera settings.

Titus213 wrote in post #2279179
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?

Both.

jfrancho wrote in post #2279396
And oh, BTW, guess what that little histogram that you are basing your exposure adjustments on is based on?

Which is why some folks have cranked the contrast parameter down to -2.

Titus213 wrote in post #2279179
Do you use the meter in the camera or do you use the sunny-16 rule for exposure?

Hand held meter, I don't trust camera meters, they almost always underexpose....even with spot metering.

Titus213 wrote in post #2280315
Which is why some folks have cranked the contrast parameter down to -2.

I follow the "zero'd out" plan, except when I know what the processing is going to be like. For those shots, I'll boost the contrast. I may take a look at going to the darkside (-2) tonight, just to see. Luckily, 95% of my shooting is in raw, so like you said earlier, there isn't as much risk if the "big one" comes along.

bphillips330 wrote in post #2244124
Not sure which forum this would be best in. With my new xti i have been taking a ton of pictures. I love getting back into slr photography, instead of point-n-shoot.

I have done a lot of reading. One thing that popped in my head is on camera sharpening. I have read with the sensor cleaning or anti aliasing thingy that is on the sensor can soften up pictures. I have seen that i can alter sharpening and saturation on camera.

what is more suggested. Do sharpening on computer (which i really havn't figured out yet on photoshop) or set camera. I know on xti that i can make custom settings to have sharpening from 0 to +10 or something like that. What does everybody tend to do with their camera. Leave it low, or bump it up a little (say +3 or +4) How much noise does this add. if there is noise, proboly won't been seen in 4x6 or even 8x10?? I don't see my self making many larger prints than that. But if i decide to, will i see noise at larger levers??

What is the concensus of saturation and sharpening levels?

Unless you need to avoid the time overhead for productivity reasons I would suggest shooting RAW and doing all of the work on computer. This has many technical advantages including more dynamic range, easier correction of colour temperature and better quality sharpening.

I have a page that list my workflow with possibly helpfull links here.

There is a good introduction to sharpening here.

A very useful book on using Photoshop CS2 and Adobe Camera RAW is The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers - Scott Kelby.

Accentor wrote in post #2279636
Sure, but you can't do anything about that; what I meant by "manipulation" is the user further enhancing sharpening, contrast, etc. within the camera settings.

Yes, I knew what you were getting at thus the wink, but you had just made a statement that it seemed lto you "that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting."

The key point is that with JPEG there is always going to be some processing. If you are trying to minimise the amount of processing the camera does because you know you are going to do PP on the computer then you might as well shoot RAW (assuming you have the storage space).

If you want to shoot JPEG, then you might as well take advantage of the all the in camera processing you can so that the shot is ready to go once downloaded from the camera.

e-k

E-K wrote in post #2281001
Yes, I knew what you were getting at thus the wink, but you had just made a statement that it seemed lto you "that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting."

The key point is that with JPEG there is always going to be some processing. If you are trying to minimise the amount of processing the camera does because you know you are going to do PP on the computer then you might as well shoot RAW (assuming you have the storage space).

If you want to shoot JPEG, then you might as well take advantage of the all the in camera processing you can so that the shot is ready to go once downloaded from the camera.

e-k

Well said E-K - completely agree.

Titus213 wrote in post #2280315
Which is why some folks have cranked the contrast parameter down to -2.

Now there you have it.My mind always thinks more is best.Never thought of going - I tried pushing the parameters but was unhappy with the result.I went back to 0 settings.So are you saying that pehaps - settings give you more latitude for PP?

E-K wrote in post #2281001
Yes, I knew what you were getting at thus the wink, but you had just made a statement that it seemed lto you "that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting."

The key point is that with JPEG there is always going to be some processing. If you are trying to minimise the amount of processing the camera does because you know you are going to do PP on the computer then you might as well shoot RAW (assuming you have the storage space).

If you want to shoot JPEG, then you might as well take advantage of the all the in camera processing you can so that the shot is ready to go once downloaded from the camera.

e-k

Exactly, and be aware that if you need to make large luminosity changes you may loose quality because of the smaller bit width.

rabidcow wrote in post #2280384
Hand held meter, I don't trust camera meters, they almost always underexpose....even with spot metering.

Oddly enough I believe Ansel Adams made a similar statement about hand held meters in one of his books (the so called K-Factor).

e-k

Lester Wareham wrote in post #2281022
Exactly, and be aware that if you need to make large luminosity changes you may loose quality because of the smaller bit width.

That goes in my notes.Thanks to you.Very well
Yes, I knew what you were getting at thus the wink, but you had just made a statement that it seemed lto you "that a lot of people do not understand the difference between JPEG (with or without in-camera processing manipulation) and RAW shooting."

The key point is that with JPEG there is always going to be some processing. If you are trying to minimise the amount of processing the camera does because you know you are going to do PP on the computer then you might as well shoot RAW (assuming you have the storage space).

If you want to shoot JPEG, then you might as well take advantage of the all the in camera processing you can so that the shot is ready to go once downloaded from the camera.

e-k

put.Cheers.RW

Oooo I messed that up.Sorry.Dang Newbies!

Rick Wong wrote in post #2281019
Now there you have it.My mind always thinks more is best.Never thought of going - I tried pushing the parameters but was unhappy with the result.I went back to 0 settings.So are you saying that pehaps - settings give you more latitude for PP?

I might be wrong but I think it was in the context of shooting RAW. The histogram is still based on the thumbnail JPEG which uses the camera settings. By setting the contrast to its most negative value the actual data is compressed into a smaller portion of the histogram theoretically letting you see better how much of the dynamic range is being used by the RAW.

e-k

Bullseye, e-k.