Sharper RAW files ?

[MeadsMan]

Hi,if we shoot in RAW and keep all settings set to 0,ie faithfull / neuteral,will some types of cameras offer a sharper image with no added adjustment ? I very very rarely get a sharp image straight out of my 400d.And all my photos seem to improve with a bit of sharpening when I shoot in Raw.Certain sensors / processors seem to offer less noise when using high iso settings too ? Is there an easy explanation for this ?

[Jim Ford]

A raw image is what it say - just the unprocessed data as captured by the photosites on the sensor. There isn't even any colour data - just grayscale.

Here's a recent post concerning image sharpness:

New Camera

Jim

[Highlander71]

I use a 400D and get sharp results. Most photos do however benefit from a little extra contrast and/or colour saturation (using "levels") to make them a bit more "punchy". This is better than using the "sharpen" tools to alter RAW images, most photo agencies insist on unsharpened images (if you wanted to sell your photos).
Hope that helps?

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by Highlander71

This is better than using the "sharpen" tools to alter RAW images

If you shoot raw, the images will always need sharpening, either transparently with the default setting of the raw processor, or manually. See the following link, which is a good explanation why (and should be made 'sticky'!):

Sharpening -- Part I

For more information regarding sharpening, download the 'Photokit Sharpener' manual from here:

http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/manual.html

BTW, 'raw' is not an acronym like 'JPEG', and therefore should not be capitalised. It means exactly what it says!

Jim

[MeadsMan]

Thanks for the replies,I don`t use photoshop for my raw files yet,only canons Dpp.So is the second link worth me looking at ? I agree with what you said about the point and shoot cameras,in the other thread,I too was expecting a lot more from my DSLR,especially as generally from my film days,prints and slides came back either sharp or not.It takes a while to accept,you generaly have to work on images from a DSLR to get the best from them.I`m just glad all raw files benefit from sharpening,it gives me faith that my techniques are not as flawed as I thought they might have been

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

BTW, 'raw' is not an acronym like 'JPEG', and therefore should not be capitalised. It means exactly what it says!

Jim

although technically both .raw and .jpeg are spelt like that - with lower case letters and a fullstop before them , because they are file extensions in the same way that word files are .doc, excel files are .xls etc. (note some computer systems capitalise file extensions so you get .JPEG .RAW .DOC etc)

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by MeadsMan

Thanks for the replies,I don`t use photoshop for my raw files yet,only canons Dpp.So is the second link worth me looking at ?

Yes, because it gives a good explanation of why we need to sharpen. It's also worth reading because it's written by the late Bruce Fraser, who's recognised as one of the leading experts in digital image processing.

Jim

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by eeyore

although technically both .raw and .jpeg are spelt like that - with lower case letters and a fullstop before them , because they are file extensions in the same way that word files are .doc, excel files are .xls etc. (note some computer systems capitalise file extensions so you get .JPEG .RAW .DOC etc)

.doc, .xls, .jpg, .jpeg, .img, .gzip, .dvi etc. are just file extensions to give some clue to brain-dead operating systems that can't work it out for themselves, and have no literal meaning. Operating systems that fiddle around with the case of file extensions are doubly brain-dead!

Jim

[Geoff F]

Whether it is correct or not, RAW in capitals has become the conventional way of spelling for the vast majority of photographers worldwide. It tends to distinguish RAW as a file system from something that is just raw, like raw meat for example. Like so much in photography and the internet in general 'Logic has nothing to do with it'. So just use whichever spelling makes most sense to you.

But to return to the original question. While most images will benefit from a little bit of careful Unsharp Mask, a lot of softness is caused by cheaper lenses and poor camera technique.

In so many cases, using a higher shutter speed or preferably a tripod will greatly improve results. I would sooner risk a bit of background noise from a higher ISO than have camera shake problems due to insufficient shutter speed.

[MeadsMan]

Actually none of this really answered my question,though was still usefull info,I find it a little annoying how topics go so quickly off track on forums.Does it really matter how we type the word RAW,as long as we all know what we are trying to get across ? Anyway,I`ll ask one more time just incase someone has an opinion,do certain cameras or sensors offer a sharper image shot in RAW [raw] .Would I get a sharper image straight from camera if I upgraded my 400D to a higher end Canon like the 40D for instance ?