|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Charles Gillen
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
 |
|
A quick experiment the other day confirmed my belief that in-camera
sharpening of digital images is preferable to relying totally on post-
processing. Note: this test was done in JPEG, not RAW, in order to
concentrate solely on the in-camera settings without the extra
complication of RAW conversion.
My Pentax DS offers five levels of sharpening (from minimum to maximum)
so under controlled indoor conditions (tripod, mirror lock-up) I shot
three tests using minimum, medium, and maximum sharpening. The lens was
a very sharp Pentax SMC-A 28mm at F/8. All shots were then loaded into
Paint Shop Pro for unsharp masking to enhance crispness to the clearest
possible result before artifacts appeared.
Result:
1) Maximum in-camera setting: benefitted from a little additional
unsharp masking and was the best overall.
2) Medium in-camera setting: decent, but not as crisp as 1) above.
3) Minimum in-camera setting: no amount of extra unsharp masking in PSP
was able to yield an image as crisp and detailed as the previous 2
settings, and artifacts were rather bad.
Conclusion:
I found post-processing could not equal or surpass the crispness of my
maximum in-camera sharpness setting. Even with the latter, I usually add
a tiny touch of unsharp masking for the most gratifying result. All my
unsharp masking is done in minimal increments. A digital photo without
extra unsharp masking is like a hotdog without mustard.
This is just one man's experience, not untested opinion. Your mileage
may vary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
tomm42
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:32 am Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
Charles Gillen wrote:
| Quote: | A quick experiment the other day confirmed my belief that in-camera
sharpening of digital images is preferable to relying totally on post-
processing. Note: this test was done in JPEG, not RAW, in order to
concentrate solely on the in-camera settings without the extra
complication of RAW conversion.
My Pentax DS offers five levels of sharpening (from minimum to maximum)
so under controlled indoor conditions (tripod, mirror lock-up) I shot
three tests using minimum, medium, and maximum sharpening. The lens was
a very sharp Pentax SMC-A 28mm at F/8. All shots were then loaded into
Paint Shop Pro for unsharp masking to enhance crispness to the clearest
possible result before artifacts appeared.
Result:
1) Maximum in-camera setting: benefitted from a little additional
unsharp masking and was the best overall.
2) Medium in-camera setting: decent, but not as crisp as 1) above.
3) Minimum in-camera setting: no amount of extra unsharp masking in PSP
was able to yield an image as crisp and detailed as the previous 2
settings, and artifacts were rather bad.
Conclusion:
I found post-processing could not equal or surpass the crispness of my
maximum in-camera sharpness setting. Even with the latter, I usually add
a tiny touch of unsharp masking for the most gratifying result. All my
unsharp masking is done in minimal increments. A digital photo without
extra unsharp masking is like a hotdog without mustard.
This is just one man's experience, not untested opinion. Your mileage
may vary.
|
I still prefer, low in camera sharpening, Photoshop CS2 Smart Sharpen
or Nik Sharpener. Haven't used USM since getting CS2. Lets me make the
descision not the camera. I use a Nikon D200 and a Fuji S1. The Nikon
requires +1 sharpening to et the best out of the images, the Fuji has
sharpening turned off. With Photoshop I use Smart Sharpen with ammount
at 99 radius at 1.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colin D
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:39 am Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
Charles Gillen wrote:
| Quote: |
A quick experiment the other day confirmed my belief that in-camera
sharpening of digital images is preferable to relying totally on post-
processing. Note: this test was done in JPEG, not RAW, in order to
concentrate solely on the in-camera settings without the extra
complication of RAW conversion.
My Pentax DS offers five levels of sharpening (from minimum to maximum)
so under controlled indoor conditions (tripod, mirror lock-up) I shot
three tests using minimum, medium, and maximum sharpening. The lens was
a very sharp Pentax SMC-A 28mm at F/8. All shots were then loaded into
Paint Shop Pro for unsharp masking to enhance crispness to the clearest
possible result before artifacts appeared.
Result:
1) Maximum in-camera setting: benefitted from a little additional
unsharp masking and was the best overall.
2) Medium in-camera setting: decent, but not as crisp as 1) above.
3) Minimum in-camera setting: no amount of extra unsharp masking in PSP
was able to yield an image as crisp and detailed as the previous 2
settings, and artifacts were rather bad.
Conclusion:
I found post-processing could not equal or surpass the crispness of my
maximum in-camera sharpness setting. Even with the latter, I usually add
a tiny touch of unsharp masking for the most gratifying result. All my
unsharp masking is done in minimal increments. A digital photo without
extra unsharp masking is like a hotdog without mustard.
This is just one man's experience, not untested opinion. Your mileage
may vary.
|
Just so. I am not familiar with PSP, but I doubt if it is as good at
post-processing as Photoshop CS or CS2. In-camera sharpened jpegs are
probably optimal in the absence of a high-end post-porcessing program.
Colin D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Gillen
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
| Quote: | I am not familiar with PSP, but I doubt if it is as good at
post-processing as Photoshop CS or CS2. In-camera sharpened jpegs are
probably optimal in the absence of a high-end post-porcessing program.
|
PSP, now up to version 10, duplicates just about everything that Photoshop
can do in the realm of digital image processing, at a fraction of the Adobe
price. I've tried Photoshop and other Adobe products, but prefer the PSP
interface which adheres more closely to the traditional Windows GUI.
More or less, PSP is the poor man's Photoshop :^) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colin D
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:35 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
Charles Gillen wrote:
| Quote: |
Colin D <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote:
I am not familiar with PSP, but I doubt if it is as good at
post-processing as Photoshop CS or CS2. In-camera sharpened jpegs are
probably optimal in the absence of a high-end post-porcessing program.
PSP, now up to version 10, duplicates just about everything that Photoshop
can do in the realm of digital image processing, at a fraction of the Adobe
price. I've tried Photoshop and other Adobe products, but prefer the PSP
interface which adheres more closely to the traditional Windows GUI.
More or less, PSP is the poor man's Photoshop :^)
|
Agreed, but it is a question of how well PSP does its processing. It
will sharpen, but is the algorithm as good as PS's? I don't know, but
it may be part of the answer.
Colin D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Derek Fountain
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
| Quote: | I found post-processing could not equal or surpass the crispness of my
maximum in-camera sharpness setting.
|
In camera sharpening *is* post process sharpening, isn't it? The camera
captures the image from the sensor, then computer algorithms are used to
apply sharpening. Whether those algorithms are applied by the in-camera
computer, or a desktop running Paint Shop Pro or something, doesn't
matter AFAICS.
I guess it's possible that the in-camera algorithm can take into account
physical characteristics of the sensor and lens, which an external
program clearly cannot, and therefore get a better result. My bet is,
though, that with the test image you took, the in-camera algorithm
bettered your skill with Paint Shop Pro at getting a result that you
found pleasing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobbH
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 08:27:30 +0000, Derek Fountain wrote:
| Quote: | In camera sharpening *is* post process sharpening, isn't it? The camera
captures the image from the sensor, then computer algorithms are used to
apply sharpening. Whether those algorithms are applied by the in-camera
computer, or a desktop running Paint Shop Pro or something, doesn't
matter AFAICS.
|
It may matter if the in-camera sharpening is applied to the image before in
undergoes jpeg compression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RobbH
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:11:42 GMT, I said:
| Quote: | It may matter if the in-camera sharpening is applied to the image before in
undergoes jpeg compression.
|
I meant:
It may matter if the in-camera sharpening is applied to the image before IT
undergoes jpeg compression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tomm42
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
PSP only has unsharp mask sharpening, the new smart sharpen in
Photoshop is much better, as is Nik Sharpener, or Fred Mirandas
sharpening action.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bugbear
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
Charles Gillen wrote:
| Quote: | A quick experiment the other day confirmed my belief that in-camera
sharpening of digital images is preferable to relying totally on post-
processing. Note: this test was done in JPEG, not RAW, in order to
concentrate solely on the in-camera settings without the extra
complication of RAW conversion.
|
Since JPEG compression effectively gives some smoothing,
the external sharpening is pretty much doomed
to lose.
DATA->sharp->JPEG
is always going to be better than
DATA->JPEG->sharp
The ->JPEG stage is lossy.
BugBear |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fix your Windows Problems - FAST.
FREE Safe Scan Registry Check. Locate & Fix Errors in Minutes!
|
|
David J Taylor
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
tomm42 wrote:
| Quote: | PSP only has unsharp mask sharpening, the new smart sharpen in
Photoshop is much better, as is Nik Sharpener, or Fred Mirandas
sharpening action.
Tom
|
PSP-10 offers:
- Adjust, Sharpness, Hi-pass sharpen
- Adjust, Sharpness, Sharpen
- Adjust, Sharpness, Sharpen more
- Adjust, Sharpness, Unsharp mask
and a group of edge effects as well.
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marvin
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:34 pm Post subject: Re: Sharpening in and out of camera compared |
|
|
Charles Gillen wrote:
| Quote: | A quick experiment the other day confirmed my belief that in-camera
sharpening of digital images is preferable to relying totally on post-
processing. Note: this test was done in JPEG, not RAW, in order to
concentrate solely on the in-camera settings without the extra
complication of RAW conversion.
My Pentax DS offers five levels of sharpening (from minimum to maximum)
so under controlled indoor conditions (tripod, mirror lock-up) I shot
three tests using minimum, medium, and maximum sharpening. The lens was
a very sharp Pentax SMC-A 28mm at F/8. All shots were then loaded into
Paint Shop Pro for unsharp masking to enhance crispness to the clearest
possible result before artifacts appeared.
snip |
The plan is flawed. It says nothing about how well PSP
would sharpen images that the camera had not already
sharpened.
I do the minimum of processing in the camera. I can try
different sharpening methods in PSP and go back to the
original if it doesn't work well. When the camera does the
sharpening, I don't have the option to undo it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Watched Topics
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Profile
Log in
Memberlist
Usergroups