Sharpening

[Jon]

I took a few shots in the garden to day, there was very strong side lighting at first it looked as if I had overcooked the sharpening but I just kept it to the minimum.

I can't help but think had I SHOT A JPEG it would have looked oversharpened i.e. refractile - what do you think?? (I bet this is a bit like a red rag to a bull but it is not intended - honest!
Jon

[Jon]

Actually if you look at the images in the Gallery they look quite different to those in the thread. in the thread they look very refractile, are they further compressed in threads??
(I also noticed I had mislabelled the Dunnock - Prunella modularis, I have reported it)

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jon

I can't help but think had I SHOT A JPEG it would have looked oversharpened i.e. refractile - what do you think?? (I bet this is a bit like a red rag to a bull but it is not intended - honest!
Jon

We all know that you prefer to shoot in raw jon and dont rate jpeg - if it isnt intended to provoke an argument why do you keep banging on about it ?

I , and i would suspect everyone else in this debate is happy to accept that for you raw beats jpeg - but would like it if you gave us the same courtesy in respecting the way we shoot and doing what works for us.

On the point - I have shot many side lit images in jpeg without a problem - I'm not at home or i would put one up to demonstrate the point. - although that said i do have the in camera sharpening set to minimum (1) rather than the default (3)

[peterjclarke]

Interesting! I'm a RAW shooter too and swear by it, but then again it depends what your reasons for photography are whether pro/semi-pro or recreational. In my opinion sharpening is best left to last as the amount and type of sharpening depends on the type of reproduction. I would normally use a very low amount of sharpening for web use and for printing increase the sharpening the larger I wish to print something (A4, A3, A2 etc). Digital cameras with non full frame sensors are actually much sharper due to the focal length being different. e.g. F2.8 on a 50 mm lens used with a digital camera will give you the depth of field of say about F4 on a film body. The Canon 5D and 1D mk2 which are full frame will give the same D.O.F as a 35mm SLR. If using Adobe Camera Raw it does not read the sharpening tags embedded within the raw file so a raw file processed with ACR would look less sharp than a JPEG. Adobe Camera Raw does by default apply a 25% sharpening mask to the file at conversion and I always changed this in the settings so that no sharpening was applied. I now use Nikon Capture NX for all RAW processing and it is miles ahead of ACR.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by eeyore

We all know that you prefer to shoot in raw jon and dont rate jpeg - if it isnt intended to provoke an argument why do you keep banging on about it ?

I , and i would suspect everyone else in this debate is happy to accept that for you raw beats jpeg - but would like it if you gave us the same courtesy in respecting the way we shoot and doing what works for us.

On the point - I have shot many side lit images in jpeg without a problem - I'm not at home or i would put one up to demonstrate the point. - although that said i do have the in camera sharpening set to minimum (1) rather than the default (3)

Hey touchy! No disrespect was intended whatsoever, to each his own, I am not trying to convert (no pun intended) anyone. I have noticed you seem to get a bit excited with a few threads but I am not baiting you or anyone else, if that is what it appears to be, then I will apologise in advance.
Peter in the thread following your reply, has explained to me my the refractile appearance may appear to be more apparent sometimes than others. Jon

[matt_xyz]

I think side lighting on a bird can reduce the need for sharpening since it increases the contrast between feathers. I suspect the shots would still have looked OK in JPEG unless the in-camera sharpening was set reasonably high.

Matt

[peterjclarke]

I think side lighting on a bird can reduce the need for sharpening since it increases the contrast between feathers. I suspect the shots would still have looked OK in JPEG unless the in-camera sharpening was set reasonably high.

Spot on Matt! and enhancing the contrast (haloing) is exactly how most sharpening tools work.

[glsammy]

I've switched off all the in-camera settings, no sharpening or any other alterations, I prefer to decided how much if any sharpening needs to be done.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by glsammy

I've switched off all the in-camera settings, no sharpening or any other alterations, I prefer to decided how much if any sharpening needs to be done.

I did that, i.e. all parameters were mid point with the exception of sharpness which I made zero. But when I go to Bridge & Adobe raw the setting seems to go to 25, am I missing something here? Does Adobe recognize the camera and set some kind of average setting?
Incidentally when I went back to the parameter where there is "normal sharpening", i.e. default, I cannot see any difference, Jon

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Jon

I did that, i.e. all parameters were mid point with the exception of sharpness which I made zero. But when I go to Bridge & Adobe raw the setting seems to go to 25, am I missing something here? Does Adobe recognize the camera and set some kind of average setting?
Incidentally when I went back to the parameter where there is "normal sharpening", i.e. default, I cannot see any difference, Jon

I use Elements 5 rather than CS2, but when I open a RAW file the default sharpening setting that it tries to apply is also 25. I always slide it to zero and then apply USM once I've opened the image in Elements itself.

Matt