C & C's please for - Flower innards - is this sharp?

Camera = 40D / Lens = 100mm F2.8 Macro USM / Flash = MT-24ex
Photoshop Editing = None
Photoshop = Re-sized only
(simply opened in CS3 and reduced file to comply with 150kb limit)
Original EXIF available

Please be ruthless!

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

i like it. i think if you would have bumped up to a higher f stop that would be even better, but that just my opinion.

looks sharp enough but Canon do recommend use of USM in Photoshop.

@ BlakeG - thanks for the tip - I will certainly select a smaller aperture for 'sharper' shots
@ Racketman - thank you. I do not understand this point. Why must I resort to editing images using Unsharp Mask (USM) for 'Sharp(er)' photographs?

Cham_001 wrote in post #10396625
@ BlakeG - thanks for the tip - I will certainly select a smaller aperture for 'sharper' shots
@ Racketman - thank you. I do not understand this point. Why must I resort to editing images using Unsharp Mask (USM) for 'Sharp(er)' photographs?

because that's the way the dslr cameras are set up - ie with minimal in camera processing unlike compacts. A lot of people take their new dslr straight back to the shop when they see the out of camera shots on their screen complaining their P&S was much sharper.
As a guide Canon suggest using USM 300/.3/0 - see pages 30 to 31.
I don't understand posters (not you) on some forums stating that 'no sharpening was applied' as if it is cheating - you are meant to sharpen! This applies especially to RAW of course but even most jpegs need some work though you can of course set sharpening to a degree in camera. My 135mm prime can produce pretty sharp images but even so a little USM will make a difference.

racketman wrote in post #10397045
because that's the way the dslr cameras are set up - ie with minimal in camera processing unlike compacts. A lot of people take their new dslr straight back to the shop when they see the out of camera shots on their screen complaining their P&S was much sharper.
As a guide Canon suggest using USM 300/.3/0 - see pages 30 to 31.
I don't understand posters (not you) on some forums stating that 'no sharpening was applied' as if it is cheating - you are meant to sharpen! This applies especially to RAW of course but even most jpegs need some work though you can of course set sharpening to a degree in camera. My 135mm prime can produce pretty sharp images but even so a little USM will make a difference.

Toby, huge thanks for this bit of enlightenment!
I have silently wondered why my photos have looked rather 'soft'. I have of course saved this file for future reference - thank you again!
I simply assumed that once you take a photograph using a DSLR, you are then 'good-to-go' with it as one would expect with a standard SLR of 'olde'.
Clearly, this is not the case as technologically 'things' are different!

So, my workflow must now allow for Post-Processing in order to make the best out of this DSLR technology.
I have not worried about the 'cheating-aspect', I just have not had the time to PP before submitting images back to clients!
(I suppose by rights, I should do a mass recall to do justice to both images and clients!)

My mantra will now be:
"... the captured image is now only the beginning of its journey ..."
this also translates to: "... shoot less and edit more ..."

I think that Canon should include an A5 'warning notice' highlighting this focus/sharpening aspect with ALL issued DSLRs.

Out of curiosity, does this apply to Nikon DSLR users too ?

You will find loads of info on sharpening Nikon images in relevant forums, people endlessly debate different workflows, whether to turn off in camera jpeg sharpening etc.