Sharpen jpgs in camera, or not?

I shoot raw 100% of the time (Have done since my D70) on my D800 and process in Lightroom, Photoshop and Nik. I'm happy with this approach as it works well, especially as the modern software and PCs handle raw almost as easily as jpg. However, my wife and I also have a couple of D7100s between us and I was thinking that if I wanted to shoot longer bursts I would need to use jpg due to the buffer limits. A big problem of jpg over raw is that it comes off the camera pre-processed. If it's over sharpened, too much contrast etc you largely have to live with it. So if I did use jpg and set the picture control to not sharpen/minimal sharpen or not add contrast etc would I have something better to work with in Lightroom? I know it won't be a raw as the level of information is much less, but is it better than a heavily pre-processed file?

I suspect this is going to be a question I'll wish I hadn't asked as it will make me look stupid and I will probably do a couple of tests for myself this weekend, however I just wondered if anybody else had considered this.

I have just the D5100 but I set my pic control for jpeg's. If I shoot RAW there is no problem.

I used the tripod and the 18-55 lens. Pointed to a very colorful subject and shot. I did so long as I was satisfied with the outcome. Now JPEG is fine with my D5100.

For the most part and similar to noise reduction, I do set sharpening and noise reduction around 6 or 7. There are times when people do not want to wait for you to process them and they just want something quick for their facebook or any other media sharing website.

I've started playing with producing JPGs as late and I'm still playing with the settings. If the idea is to have it come out of the camera ready to share then I am going to want to sharpen. Just how much always depends on the subject in my post processing, so I've been hunting for the right sweet spot. Some stuff may just get over sharpened that way. I really don't use U1 and U2 that often, so I'm leaning towards having these set for two sets of jpeg-based settings.

BackdoorHippie said:

I've started playing with producing JPGs as late and I'm still playing with the settings. If the idea is to have it come out of the camera ready to share then I am going to want to sharpen. Just how much always depends on the subject in my post processing, so I've been hunting for the right sweet spot. Some stuff may just get over sharpened that way. I really don't use U1 and U2 that often, so I'm leaning towards having these set for two sets of jpeg-based settings.

Click to expand...

Good Idea Jake!! I may try that, Thanks!

Pat in NH

I never do any in camera adjustments. Once out of the camera you can never go back. I always do it in post and can always go back to my original file.

I have my camera set to +7 in the Sharpening menu. It makes a huuuge difference in the IQ when shooting JPG. My advice is to definitely "up" this setting from the head-scratchingly-low factory default setting of something like -3 in the menu.

In my experience with the D7100, that's the ONLY adjustment I found I've wanted to make when shooting JPG.

.....

Dont know if i have missed Geoffs point but if he is asking is it better to remove all camera processing in jpeg, so you get an unaltered starting point to PP then i would like to know the answer to that, as i could do with the frame rate jpeg offers for some of my subjects.

Not what anyone will want to hear, but FWIW, it is always said that sharpening should be the last thing done. Meaning specifically, done AFTER any resampling, and done for the specific purpose (screen viewing or printing, etc.)

Because 1) any later resampling destroys any previous sharpening (including auto resize done to show a too large image on a too small screen - this is resampling too).

When viewing images on the screen, unless we resample them smaller ourself, the viewing software must automatically resample them smaller to screen size. Either way, like from 12 or 24 megapixels to at most 2 megapixels (if even that). This throws away most pixels, destroying any previous sharpening. Technically, sharpening should follow any resampling, for the applicable purpose.

Only a few years ago, computers were slower, and image screen viewers did this automatic size resampling using poor (but fast) nearest neighbor resampling (we often saw artifacts of it, so we much preferred to control it ourself, doing the necessary preparation). Today, better software can use better bicubic methods and it comes out better, but any original camera resharpening is of course still lost and overwritten (when resized smaller).

And 2) the degree of sharpening needed depends on the use. Whether we are capable enough to resample them ourself or not, then we view those images shown on the screen necessarily at around 100 dpi resolution (pixel density, capability of the viewing device). Whereas if we print them, it is more like 300 dpi resolution - but still less than the original 12 or 24 megapixels. Because of the higher density of this view, printing can use (needs) more sharpening than the screen. Perhaps USM radius 2 or even 3 for printing instead of radius 0.8. So if we are knowledgeable, we sharpen last, for the specific purpose, judged when seen in that actual final purpose. If an image has multiple purposes, that means multiple sharpenings of multiple copies, for specific uses (i.e., done last).

Sharpening done once in the camera is actually pointless (at best, unnecessary pixel manipulation), because any viewing or printing resampling destroys it (discards most of the pixels).

mikew said:

Dont know if i have missed Geoffs point but if he is asking is it better to remove all camera processing in jpeg, so you get an unaltered starting point to PP then i would like to know the answer to that, as i could do with the frame rate jpeg offers for some of my subjects.

Click to expand...

Just my two-cents on this...

My thinking is this... If I'm going to shoot JPG then I've tacitly decided to do as little PP as possible (I find working with JPG's in Photoshop clumsy at best), otherwise I wouldn't be shooting JPG to begin with, I'd be shooting RAW. That being the case I adjust the in-camera settings as much (or as little) as I need to so that my JPG's are as good as they can get right out of the camera; again, to me, that's the whole point. And, in my admittedly limited experience with JPG's out my '7100, it does a damn fine job with minimal adjustment.

The Sharpness setting is, IMO, a critical one mainly because I think the factory default setting is waaay too low to begin with and actually softens the output. I've sometimes thought a tweak to the Contrast setting was in order, but that's a matter of taste really and I've gone back on forth on it. I do like to use "Landscape" setting when shooting JPG because I think the color saturation is a little better than "Standard" but not as strong as "Vivid" which to me is a little too strong generally.

Don't know if any of that helps or matters to you, but there ya go!

......

I think Mike and Wayne got where I was coming, probably my bad explanation in the first place. Unlike Horoscope Fish's suggestion that I've decided I want lower quality, the situation is far from it. I may wish to shoot jpg purely because I need the fps and buffer available on the D7100, but then post process with the best possible negative.

When I shoot raw they look flat, dull and basically horrible off the camera, however they offer great latitude for adjustment, including as Wayne mentioned, sharpening at the very last stage. So my question was, should I apply minimal processing to jpgs to allow similar but by no means as good adjustment in post?

Geoffc said:

Unlike Horoscope Fish's suggestion that I've decided I want lower quality, the situation is far from it.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, what?! I suggested nothing of the sort...

.....

Geoffc said:

I think Mike and Wayne got where I was coming, probably my bad explanation in the first place. Unlike Horoscope Fish's suggestion that I've decided I want lower quality, the situation is far from it. I may wish to shoot jpg purely because I need the fps and buffer available on the D7100, but then post process with the best possible negative.

When I shoot raw they look flat, dull and basically horrible off the camera, however they offer great latitude for adjustment, including as Wayne mentioned, sharpening at the very last stage. So my question was, should I apply minimal processing to jpgs to allow similar but by no means as good adjustment in post?

Click to expand...

Will be interested in your results,as you say it would only be in certain situations

Horoscope Fish said:

I'm sorry, what?! I suggested nothing of the sort...

.....

Click to expand...

Sorry you right. I re-read you post and you didn't say that. It was me putting 2 and 2 together and making 5.

Geoffc said:

I think Mike and Wayne got where I was coming, probably my bad explanation in the first place. Unlike Horoscope Fish's suggestion that I've decided I want lower quality, the situation is far from it. I may wish to shoot jpg purely because I need the fps and buffer available on the D7100, but then post process with the best possible negative.

When I shoot raw they look flat, dull and basically horrible off the camera, however they offer great latitude for adjustment, including as Wayne mentioned, sharpening at the very last stage. So my question was, should I apply minimal processing to jpgs to allow similar but by no means as good adjustment in post?

Click to expand...

Raw is just that raw they need to processed thats why the look flat and dull.Why not just shoot raw+jpeg ?

bigal1000 said:

Raw is just that raw they need to processed thats why the look flat and dull.Why not just shoot raw+jpeg ?

Click to expand...

Because he needs the FPS that you can only get with JPEG

I would still increase the Sharpening in the camera. Nikons are set very low from the factory. Play with it and do some test on your own to see what you think is an acceptable level and go with it. I did a time lapse a while back and due to the large number of frames I shot JPEG because it was going to be impossible to edit each shot or to even do a bulk edit because I shot 6,000 frames.

JPEG can be good in certain cases.

bigal1000 said:

Raw is just that raw they need to processed thats why the look flat and dull.Why not just shoot raw+jpeg ?

Click to expand...

Al

The whole point was that I was shooting jpg to get more buffer from my D7100. I hardly ever normally shoot jpg. In reality, having used the camera a bit more I think the buffer is fine for my needs so I will stick to raw.