Reading through jrp's Velvia picture control thread, He did mention that cranking up the sharpening in camera does loose some data? Surely that would not apply when shooting raw?
What I have been trying to achieve is getting it right straight out of the camera, I have been reasonably successful with this since I have been making minor adjustments to the in camera picture controls, in that adjustment, I have been more aggressive with the sharpening setting as I found I was always adding more PP in CNX2 Regards, Gary
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
Sharpening can,if pushed too far, increase exposure.
Sharpening has no effect whatsoever on exposure. Sharpening is applied in the camera during the conversion of the raw data to the in camera JPG; so the effects of sharpening would show there. Sharpening is also stored in the metadata and unless overridden might affect post processing of NEF files.
Bill the histogram in camera and the related blinkies are based on the jpeg image converted from raw. So if somebody is judging exposure based on looking at the histogram or the blinkies then increasing or decreasing sharpening will affect the exposure as seen in camera therefore it is logical that someone seeing the effect might be tempted to alter their settings. That was my point. You are correct in your last statement. I opened an image in ACR and the exposure - the flashing red alerts - changed as I added or lowered the sharpening.
Here is a link that will explain it better than myself.
then increasing or decreasing sharpening will affect the exposure as seen in camera
Not the exposure "as seen by the (in?) camera" but as (mis)interpreted by the user. Sharpening has no effect on the exposure. If the user is fooled into changing their exposure, that is a different matter.
>Tom, > >then increasing or decreasing sharpening >will affect the exposure as seen in camera > >Not the exposure "as seen by the (in?) camera" but >as (mis)interpreted by the user. >Sharpening has no effect on the exposure. >If the user is fooled into changing their exposure, that is a >different matter.
Would you agree then that using in camera sharpening isn't a good thing because they could be "fooled" into thinking the exposure isn't correct?
Unless a user has no access to Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop, Lightroom or Elements or some other raw converter, I see no advantages at all in taking images in jpeg! Flash cards are as cheap as chips now and Amazon UK this week are selling a full licenced copy of Lightroom 3 for £95! Even if you don't want to use RAW, it will process multiple jpegs too.
Just a thought as with RAW one can concentrate on the camera shutter, aperture, metering and ISO settings etc, knowing that everything can be changed time and time again.
You're probably right. When I take a photograph my intention is to capture as perfect an image as possible to negate extensive post processing. However, when on a wildlife or wedding shoot where in a few hours upwards of 500 images are taken then post processing becomes a chore. Adding sharpening in my view at the camera end is unnecessary and reflects compact cameras which always automatically add sharpening. This opinion also applies to many of the available picture controls.
The software haters may well be those who really have no idea of how software can assist in the whole process, or perhpas even just can't afford to buy them. It's like saying that all advanced film photographers should just send the roll of film to any old high street processor. I see the digital darkroom no different from the wet process in terms of achieving the highest quality of image.
The hallmark of "over" sharpening are halos that are dark and light regions next to the sharpened edge.
I suppose it's possible that the bright part of the halo could be large enough to show as blinking on a highlight screen.
If the photographer misinterprets that as needing to reduce exposure then they have been "fooled" by the sharpening. If so, they might underexpose in ETTR terms by 1/3 stop. IMO, not a big deal.
It's semantics to be sure but IMO the photographer is a "fool" rather than being "fooled" That's because if sharpening is causing this effect then the photographer should reduce sharpening rather than reducing exposure.
Absolutely right, which is why except in exceptional circumstances, I keep a large image sharpening to an amount of 90 and the radius 0.9. For a web small image, this is likely to be an amount of 25 and a radius of 0.2-0.3 maximum. Occasionally, I exceed these limits, but that is definitly the exception than the rule.
I don't sharpen a large image, then just reduce in size for web or e-mail, I treat them as two seperate processes. halo'ing means also that too much noise is often introduced into the image dark areas.
It's interesting how many areas of post processing almost become a science in themselves.
When shooting RAW, in-camera sharpening has no effect (or can be changed) in post processing. But setting the in-camera sharpening a bit aggressively does give a better LCD image.
The rare times I shoot JPGs I leave the in-camera sharpening where it is. Two reasons: (1) for the purposes of those JPGs the sharpening helps more than it hurts; and (2) by not changing the setting, I don't forget to change it back!
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
I agree with Richard, in that the process should be capture and then development, which unfortunately requires the development process, which Kodak and Fuji used to do for us in the film slide days for $3.50 in the US. Now we need computers, but they are not that bad, all you need is to do the minimum of tweaking to get something better that what we got from these icons of yesterday. I now only shoot in RAW and tweak my pictures in less than 8 minutes each. The software can be had for less that $100 for Photoshop Elements, and LIghtroom for less than $200. A key point is that when you sharpen in Lightroom or Bridge, especially with CS5, you not only sharpen but also reduce noise. You can also crop and can make your captures faster, which may be crucial in, for example, wildlife.
<A key point is that when you sharpen in Lightroom or Bridge, especially with CS5, you not only sharpen but also reduce noise>
To me, the major leap forward was the wonderful luminance noise control in Lightroom 3. However, I have to admit that after 6 years of Photoshop CS suite and 3 years of Lightroom I only recently had sharpening techniques properly explained. It is so easy to get it wrong, forget that it's the last thing to do and that sharpening of a resized small web image should be a seperate process from work on a full size image for printing. That said, working in RAW it really doesn't matter as evrything can be undone.
Regarding batch processing, I did a wedding where the results (500+ images) were required within 48 hours of capture! In Lightroom 3 I succeeded in post processing all the images, deleted those not required, converted and exported all the processed to full size jpegs and put the disk in the post to the client and also upload resized files to a website. Lightroom really rocks!
>When shooting RAW, in-camera sharpening has no effect (or can >be changed) in post processing. But setting the in-camera >sharpening a bit aggressively does give a better LCD image. > Jon - plse explain :when shooting RAW how does Picture control affect the RAW file ? Is it only good for the converted JPEG lcd image ? If it is imbeded in the sidecar of the RAW file, then LR3 will apply the settings. How do we cancel the picture control used during the shooting?
Fri 27-Jan-12 06:44 AM | edited Fri 27-Jan-12 06:47 AM by richardd300
It is my understanding that Picture controls are really for jpeg shooters. That means that any "in camera" settings are applied to the jpeg image at the point of shot. Also and for example WB is applied in the same way, so if you had accidentally left your camera WB on e.g. Tungsten light and then when you downloaded the image and it had a blue hue, you can do absolutely nothing about it and effectively the image is ruined.
When you take a jpeg image all the camera setting you have applied are burned into the image with no way of processing them out in software.
However a RAW file is an unprocessed file, in real terms it just contains the light and colours it recorded on the sensor. That means that when it's uploaded into Adobe Camera Raw everything is changeable and the changes you make are recorded on a sidecar file, a .xmp file. When you reopen an image it refers automatically to the .xmp file and applies the changes you made. That way the original NEF raw image remains as shot. In CS5, Lightroom or Elements, you don't see the .xmp file as it's stored elsewhere, you will see it in its windows folder.
This is why I always take in RAW so any accidental mistakes, apart from poor focusing of course, can be undone. Nikonians moderator Briantilley is an expert on this and I am hoping he will see this and correct anything I have wrongly stated.
I should add, that of course brightness, contrast, midtones etc can still be adjusted on a jpeg and many other things too, but any sharpening will be added to the already on-camera sharpening you may have applied and as mentioned WB cannot be adjusted.
If you haven't tried RAW, give it a go. It doesn't mean you will spend all your time on the computer instead of the camera, but it is amazing what is in Adobe Camera Raw software (which incidentally is a free download if you haven't got Photoshop products) can achieve. One of my favourite features is the levelling tool where horizons etc. can be adjusted almost magically without the pain of other onerous methods. As said anything you do is fully reversable without any image degradation.
Shooting in RAW is possibly the best thing I have learned in years and I've now been 4 years using it. Yes, occasionally I still shoot jpegs, but that's only for family parties, fun shots etc. where the camera normally excels with a jpeg.
Richard - thank you for your explanation - you have clarified the matter. I always shoot RAW but I was under the impression that a part from White Balance the picture control was permanent. You see we learn all the time - this is what I like from the Nikonnians forum.
By the way you should add you name at the end of your messages - unless you like being called Jacques. Lol
Tks Jacques, Actually, not having the Internet did not bother me that much, although I thought I may have to get help for the wife , she is lost with out it
I must admit, If I did not have the iPhone, life would have been different
As for raw, that is all I shoot, I'm currently using CNX2 and ViewNX2, I probably will not upgrade software until I get a new system, hopefully iMac I find CNX2 is about all I need but do miss some options that photoshop has, I did have paint-shop pro a long time ago which has similar but had silly file configurations Regards, Gary
I used to have a photographic memory but never got it developed
There isn't a conclusive answer to that one,only a highly subjective one. As pointed out if you over sharpen then it can't be undone. In camera sharpening will - especially at a high level - sharpen not only areas of detail but skies too. Your link shows aeroplanes that obviously have skies in them so high sharpening wouldn't imo be a good idea.
Cranking the sharpening up to 7 results in an image that has sharpening more akin to capture + print sharpening, not just capture sharpening. That's okay if you're not planning to do much in the way of edits or if you're not worried about getting everything out of your camera that you could. I definitely wouldn't do it. There's a reason the default sharpening levels in-camera and in most raw processing programs are lower - better flexibility for the photographer and better flexibility in what you do with the images.
Shy talk <It seems to work ok, but I know it can be improved on, question is 'is it worth it?'. Would I really notice the improvements?>
If it works for you, leave sleeping dogs lie! It's not a case of being lazy and when I first used Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) it was a major change. Perhaps we can look at it another way.
If one produces a RAW image and processes it in ACR the sliders on the right hand side tend to allow an "in order" routine starting with WB and then exposure etc, or the "auto" function may be used. Then, there's the various menus from "basic through sharpening and noise reduction to even camera calibration. This is also the case in Lightroom 3 where it's an "in order" menu system. What I find this did for me was to set up a routine and now if I am processing in CS5 I tend to follow an order of adjustments. In any event sharpening is definitely the last thing I do.
I think we need to be careful, as this thread is now entering the need to the subject a of "Adobe post processing" forum