In-Camera Sharpening - Good or Bad?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cooter, Jul 14, 2003.

  1. Cooter

    Cooter Guest

    I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
    in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
    program.
     
    Cooter, Jul 14, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Cooter

    Matti Vuori Guest

    "Cooter" <> wrote in
    news:YaAQa.273868$:
    > I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
    > in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
    > program.


    Other options than what?

    If you always postprocess the images, turn in-camera sharpening off,
    because:
    * Sharpening should always be the last step in image correction
    * You have more control over the process
    * Softer images compress better in camera, thus giving you better quality
    (the results depend on the camera model used)

    --
    Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>
     
    Matti Vuori, Jul 14, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cooter

    Chuck Gadd Guest

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:41:44 GMT, "Cooter" <>
    wrote:

    >I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
    >in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
    >program.


    I always set the camera to soft, and do all sharpening on my PC.

    One example where this is VERY important is when I'm taking pictures
    at my son's baseball games. On most fields, there is a chain-link
    fence visible in the pictures of the batters. If I sharpen the
    entire picture, the sharpened chain link fence detracts from the
    picture. I use the editing programs to only sharpen around the
    players.




    Chuck Gadd
    http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
     
    Chuck Gadd, Jul 14, 2003
    #3
  4. Cooter

    Guest

    In message <YaAQa.273868$>,
    "Cooter" <> wrote:

    >I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
    >in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
    >program.


    Sharpening increases contrast, pixel to pixel. If you sharpen something
    too much, and then do any color balancing or levels changes, you will
    stand the chance of clipping pixels, or losing them in the shadows. If
    you do any perspective or lens corrections on an image, the sharpening
    radius will vary throughout the image. If you resize the image, the
    sharpening will change.

    Sharpening is really something that should be fine-tuned to the medium
    and resolution in which something is displayed. Generally speaking, it
    is better to leave the image camera-soft, and only sharpen when you make
    a file for display, or you go to print.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jul 16, 2003
    #4
  5. Cooter

    Rafe B. Guest

    On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:41:44 GMT, "Cooter" <>
    wrote:

    >I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
    >in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
    >program.



    I agree with all of the responses offered so far.

    Sharpening pushes tones toward the extremes,
    so risks loss of information.

    Sharpening should be done at the final resolution
    of the image, whether it be for print or for display.
    In general, sharpening is the last step in image-
    editing, and ideally one should "reserve" some
    tonal range for that step.

    If you sharpen in-camera, you limit future uses of
    the same image.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Jul 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Cooter

    Paul H. Guest

    "Rafe B." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:41:44 GMT, "Cooter" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
    > >in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
    > >program.

    >
    >
    > I agree with all of the responses offered so far.
    >
    > Sharpening pushes tones toward the extremes,
    > so risks loss of information.
    >
    > Sharpening should be done at the final resolution
    > of the image, whether it be for print or for display.
    > In general, sharpening is the last step in image-
    > editing, and ideally one should "reserve" some
    > tonal range for that step.
    >
    > If you sharpen in-camera, you limit future uses of
    > the same image.


    I agree completely, particularly with the "loss of information" statement:
    once information is gone, all the Photoshop skills in the world ain't gonna
    bring it back. Sharpen pictures outside the camera, as needed.

    Sadly, I think in-camera sharpening is pushed more by marketing than by
    necessity and I wish camera manufacturers would allow users even more
    latitude in choosing what kind and degree of in-camera processing to be
    employed, even for non-DSLR, mid-priced cameras. I still have and
    occasionally use an old C-2500L and Olympus nearly ruined the camera's
    output by insisting upon a hard-edged contrast enhancement scheme in the
    camera's software.
     
    Paul H., Jul 16, 2003
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Matti Haveri

    Sharpening digital camera images for photo-store printing

    Matti Haveri, Aug 26, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    725
    Mike Russell
    Aug 29, 2003
  2. john
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,209
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Jul 28, 2004
  3. Replies:
    12
    Views:
    3,035
    Michael Alan Chary
    Feb 23, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    532
  5. John

    Bad media, bad files or bad Nero?

    John, Dec 31, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    1,268
    Keith
    Jan 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page