Sharpening

My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

TIA

Toby

--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 10:08:54 -0800, Ockham's Razor wrote:
My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

NEVER futz with the original of any digital file _without_ first making
a backup copy. In-camera miky-maus with the image violates this Rule.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm

Ockham's Razor wrote:
My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

TIA

Toby

I prefer to do all such operations on my computer, where I
have options (there are multiple algorithms for sharpening)
and can reverse the result if it isn't satisfactory.

Today, Ockham's Razor made these interesting comments ...

My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

'Tis FAR better to do image manipulation such as sharpening in an
interactive graphics app where you can see the proposed results and
there is an undo button. There are times when certain controls of
your camera should be modified but one needs to be quite
experienced as to what does what when and what kind of lighting
conditions demand what changes. About the only way I know how to
learn this stuff, and I am far from done with my Rebel XT learning,
is to shoot thousands of test shots carefully controlling what you
are changing, then look at the results.

I tend to set my Rebel's controls pretty much as nominal and I
ALWAYS save the original image files from the camera and work on a
copy. Plus, I do incremental saves during difficult edits to guard
against the 'puter going south or doing an editing blunder or just
plain changing your mind.

But, for anybody to really answer you question, perhaps you should
talk about the subject(s) you intend to shoot, lighting condition
(s) you expect, and the purpose(s) you intend to use the images
for.

--
HP, aka Jerry

Ockham's Razor wrote:
My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

TIA

Toby

The camera software is necessarily simple, having regard to the firmware
space available to hold the various options.

Computer-based image-handling software is far more sophisticated than
the camera, and as others have said, is controllable and reversible. A
downside is it takes time to do it in the computer, but from an image
quality POV it is highly desirablerather than in-camera.

Colin D.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Colin_D wrote:

Ockham's Razor wrote:
My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

TIA

Toby

The camera software is necessarily simple, having regard to the firmware
space available to hold the various options.

Computer-based image-handling software is far more sophisticated than
the camera, and as others have said, is controllable and reversible. A
downside is it takes time to do it in the computer, but from an image
quality POV it is highly desirablerather than in-camera.

Colin D.

What you say is mostly true, but the proof, as they say, is in the
pudding. It's generally a good rule of thumb that in-camera sharpening
isn't as good as doing it in Photoshop or other software, but it's not
necessarily true. The best thing to do is experiment and see what you
get. Try shooting without in-camera sharpening, and then try it with the
sharpening, as well. Try the different level settings for the
sharpening. See what the camera can do for you.

Ockham's Razor wrote:
My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

TIA

Toby

The pat answer is...use your editor, and I think that's right for the most
part.

But...that depends on two things:

1. Your editor (Some simple editors do a horrible job under "automatic
sharpening" settings)
2. Your skill/know-how

If you have a decent editor...AND...you know how to use it effectively, then
you'll almost always have better results doing it yourself. Some folks
botch their decent images badly by screwing up the setting in
post-processing...or they horribly damage the image file beyond repair.

Example: My dad has a good eye for a scene, and is an intelligent man.
BUT...He's an absolute moron on the computer. For him, he's much better
off just setting the sharpening up a touch in his Canon 10D...and enjoy
shooting.

I don't have any idea what your skill level is, or what software you use.
You may be very good at it... But there are others reading along who may
need to hear this.
Experiment a bit and see the difference for yourself. Try your camera's
various sharpness setting (BUT...make sure you set your camera on a tripod,
or table and shoot the EXACT same scene at each setting...otherwise your
tests will be invalidated by factors like camera shake, aperture settings,
etc.). Then shoot without applying sharpening in-camera (or at its lowest
setting), and then see how you do on that same shot.

Mark²

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Feb 5, 11:48 am, "HEMI-Powered" wrote:
'Tis FAR better to do image manipulation such as sharpening in an
interactive graphics app where you can see the proposed results and
there is an undo button.

I agree. Leave the post-processing steps to the computer. That way you
have the "original" file. My pet peeve is people who take B&W or sepia
photos with a color digital camera.

Ockham's Razor wrote:
: My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

: Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

Warning: personal opinion and generalizations to follow

I try to do as little in camera processing as possible. Some settings or
cameras may be ok for a particular use (or user), but in general the less
in camera processing the better.

Also the post processing program you intend to use will effect how
effective any process is. But in general most good editors will be able to
do a better job than an in camera. Here's why I think this. It is purely a
function of how much time is available for the processing to happen. If a
procedure takes 10 seconds after each shot (slowing display, storage,
repete shots, etc) many people would find this delay very upsetting. But
the same process, using the same procedure in post editing taking the same
10 seconds would be counted a fast process. And so editors can use even
more involved processes which take more time per image and still not upset
the photographer. So in a very general sense a 25 sec very involved
procedure in post processing is likely to be more exacting than the 2 sec
processing in camera. As with anything else, your camera, your editor,
your computer, your skill with the camera, your skill with the editor, etc
will make the results vary greatly for each of us.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Paul Mitchum wrote:
Colin_D wrote:

Ockham's Razor wrote:
My D 50 allows for some in camera sharpening.

Is this better than sharpening later with PSE?

TIA

Toby

The camera software is necessarily simple, having regard to the firmware
space available to hold the various options.

Computer-based image-handling software is far more sophisticated than
the camera, and as others have said, is controllable and reversible. A
downside is it takes time to do it in the computer, but from an image
quality POV it is highly desirablerather than in-camera.

Colin D.

What you say is mostly true, but the proof, as they say, is in the
pudding. It's generally a good rule of thumb that in-camera sharpening
isn't as good as doing it in Photoshop or other software, but it's not
necessarily true. The best thing to do is experiment and see what you
get. Try shooting without in-camera sharpening, and then try it with the
sharpening, as well. Try the different level settings for the
sharpening. See what the camera can do for you.

The objection to that procedure is the results are irreversible. For
testing or playing around, it's fine, but for shots that you have to
deliver on, in-camera processing of contrast, sharpness, etc. is dangerous.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com