Sharpness increase - any negatives?
- Thread starter Moab Man
- Start date
If you're referring to post processing sharpening then yes, the downside is type of noise that's more of a "graininess" than the typical noise you get from a high ISO. You can reduce that graininess somewhat by altering the radius but it's no cure-all and in the end you'll have to find that perfect balance between sharpening vs. graininess. That's why it's always best to start with the sharpest image possible so that you'll need little, if any, post processing sharpening.
I think you might be referring to the In Camera setting for JPEGS,, like Vivid versus Normal.. People taste vary on their settings.
This is in Set Picture Control, and the mode has a large effect in how your JPEGs look..
Me: I have mine set on Vivid (reminds me of Fuji Film), Saturation in the middle, and I move sharpening up, just one click,
oversharpening in camera is loosing information and such, so,, I tend to sharpen in Post..
now this leads to the debate of RAW versus JPEG.... Purist will state that they ONLY use RAW.
My rule, is that I start with the JPEG, for many uses, the JPEG is very fine (keeps getting better), and just
quicker to work off the JPEG and requires less adjustments,
If I think the picture is portfolio quality, then I will open the RAW and try to "beat" my JPEG edit. Sometimes
I end up happier with the JPEG editor, and othertimes the RAW.
Now if I screwed up the whitebalance or some other flaw in the JPEG, then better to fix starting with the
RAW files.
This is in Set Picture Control, and the mode has a large effect in how your JPEGs look..
Me: I have mine set on Vivid (reminds me of Fuji Film), Saturation in the middle, and I move sharpening up, just one click,
oversharpening in camera is loosing information and such, so,, I tend to sharpen in Post..
now this leads to the debate of RAW versus JPEG.... Purist will state that they ONLY use RAW.
My rule, is that I start with the JPEG, for many uses, the JPEG is very fine (keeps getting better), and just
quicker to work off the JPEG and requires less adjustments,
If I think the picture is portfolio quality, then I will open the RAW and try to "beat" my JPEG edit. Sometimes
I end up happier with the JPEG editor, and othertimes the RAW.
Now if I screwed up the whitebalance or some other flaw in the JPEG, then better to fix starting with the
RAW files.
What do you mean by "Digital zoom"? Digital zoom is nothing but cropping. It is enlarging the image to only use part of it. So, of course, any defects or noise would be multiplied with this "Digital Zoom".
The sharpness settings in the camera settings is something that you have to adjust to your liking. You adjust it, take pictures, evaluate them and then go from there. It's all a question of taste, a little bit like salt. Some people like more and others less.
Hope this helps.
Pierro
Senior Member
Best to forget in-camera sharpening as you have much more control over this process in PP
Unless of course you are one of those that accept their photos straight from the camera without doing any PP, in which case, caution should be used. In fact that goes for both PP and in-camera
Unless of course you are one of those that accept their photos straight from the camera without doing any PP, in which case, caution should be used. In fact that goes for both PP and in-camera