D100: pristine jpegs need no sharpening

Craig Strong

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
330
Reaction score
0
Location
Portland, OR, US
Below are the opinions of a former Canon evangelist (owning a D60 has tempered my enthusiasm).

Received my D100 five days ago and shot it alongside my D60 at a wedding on Friday. Took some images in a fairly well-controlled environment comparing D60/D1x/D100 files both raw and jpeg. Not controlled enough to post samples without getting rightfully flamed in the forums so another test is coming.

Nikon lens used for comparison: AF-S 28-70 2.8D
Canon lens used for comparison: 28-70 2.8L USM

Summary of my initial impression: My D100 produced STUNNING images. Large fine jpeg images with low or no sharpening on the D100 blow away the low sharpened (can't turn off agressive sharpening on the D60) large fine jpegs from the D60 and beat out the D1x images by a smaller margin.

D100 images:
+almost zero jpeg artifacts in jpeg large/fine

+images that were not sharpened in camera when shooting jpeg or when converted to 16bit tifs from raw were amazingly sharp
+grain is tight (noise is low)

+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in making substantial adjustments

-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather than only sharpening the edges

D1x images:

+almost zero jpeg artifacts
+noise is low

+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in making substantial adjustments
-images softer when not sharpened than the D100 images

-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather than only sharpening the edges

D60 images:

+RAW files sharpened when converting look beautiful, much better than the in camera sharpening (less agressive)

+open sky and low contrast areas are very smooth indicating that Canon's sharpening only affects the edges rather than the entire image

-RAW files not sharpened when converting look like a bowl of slimy, old oatmeal, yuk! (they are quite soft)

-jpeg large/fine images look very compressed and sharpening is agressive even at the low sharpening setting

-sRGB native color space makes major adjustments in exposure and color very difficult to pull off

In the field the D100 performed beautifully. 1600 ASA images look about the same as 800 ASA D60 images if slightly cleaner. AF with no AF assist light enabled worked miracles with scenes where I could hardly see my subjects. The buffer cleared plenty fast for jpeg images (useless for NEF or tiff files unless you absolutely have to have a raw image to work from...that's ONE raw image, any more and you'll need to take break while counting to 1000...slowly). ISO Auto setting is ingenious and works beautifully but only is useful in shutter priority and manual modes (it appears that you get 30 second exposures in aperture and program before it shifts ISO up to give you more sensitivity). The battery lasts forever (this coming from a D60 user who is used to long battery life).

I returned the rental AF-S 28-70 f2.8D and 85 f1.8D this morning and bought myself a used 28-85 2.8-4D for $375 in new condition at Pro Photo Supply. I guess that means I'm committed and have a boat-load of Canon gear to unload.

I'm thrilled that Nikon has given me a camera that provides the image quality and operational responsiveness that Canon could not seem to combine in one machine.
 
Your post would have made more sense to me in the sadly famous "American Girl" thread.
Raul
 
Why shoot in jpg, you are throwing your digital neg away. Shoot in RAW and use NC to sharpen, alter contrast etc. If more were doing this with the D100 I think that we would see far less talk about sharpness,

Barry http://www.barrytheguide.com/Pages/D1Photos/index.htm

Who Dares Wins
Below are the opinions of a former Canon evangelist (owning a D60
has tempered my enthusiasm).

Received my D100 five days ago and shot it alongside my D60 at a
wedding on Friday. Took some images in a fairly well-controlled
environment comparing D60/D1x/D100 files both raw and jpeg. Not
controlled enough to post samples without getting rightfully flamed
in the forums so another test is coming.

Nikon lens used for comparison: AF-S 28-70 2.8D
Canon lens used for comparison: 28-70 2.8L USM

Summary of my initial impression: My D100 produced STUNNING images.
Large fine jpeg images with low or no sharpening on the D100 blow
away the low sharpened (can't turn off agressive sharpening on the
D60) large fine jpegs from the D60 and beat out the D1x images by a
smaller margin.

D100 images:
+almost zero jpeg artifacts in jpeg large/fine
+images that were not sharpened in camera when shooting jpeg or
when converted to 16bit tifs from raw were amazingly sharp
+grain is tight (noise is low)
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D1x images:

+almost zero jpeg artifacts
+noise is low
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-images softer when not sharpened than the D100 images
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D60 images:

+RAW files sharpened when converting look beautiful, much better
than the in camera sharpening (less agressive)
+open sky and low contrast areas are very smooth indicating that
Canon's sharpening only affects the edges rather than the entire
image
-RAW files not sharpened when converting look like a bowl of slimy,
old oatmeal, yuk! (they are quite soft)
-jpeg large/fine images look very compressed and sharpening is
agressive even at the low sharpening setting
-sRGB native color space makes major adjustments in exposure and
color very difficult to pull off

In the field the D100 performed beautifully. 1600 ASA images look
about the same as 800 ASA D60 images if slightly cleaner. AF with
no AF assist light enabled worked miracles with scenes where I
could hardly see my subjects. The buffer cleared plenty fast for
jpeg images (useless for NEF or tiff files unless you absolutely
have to have a raw image to work from...that's ONE raw image, any
more and you'll need to take break while counting to
1000...slowly). ISO Auto setting is ingenious and works beautifully
but only is useful in shutter priority and manual modes (it appears
that you get 30 second exposures in aperture and program before it
shifts ISO up to give you more sensitivity). The battery lasts
forever (this coming from a D60 user who is used to long battery
life).

I returned the rental AF-S 28-70 f2.8D and 85 f1.8D this morning
and bought myself a used 28-85 2.8-4D for $375 in new condition at
Pro Photo Supply. I guess that means I'm committed and have a
boat-load of Canon gear to unload.

I'm thrilled that Nikon has given me a camera that provides the
image quality and operational responsiveness that Canon could not
seem to combine in one machine.
 
Barry,
Why shoot in jpg, you are throwing your digital neg away. Shoot in
RAW and use NC to sharpen, alter contrast etc. If more were doing
this with the D100 I think that we would see far less talk about
sharpness,
If more were doing this with the D100 we would see far more mental illness in the photographic community.

Word association, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Water torture!

I am paid to capture moments. Every aspect of the photograph is secondary to how real and important and captivating the moment I capture is. If shooting RAW means I can shoot half as many frames as I can in in jpeg which, in the case of the D100, is nearly identical to what a tiff would be from a raw of the same scene why would I shoot raw?

I shoot most portraits in RAW because I want to have more control over skitones and highlights. I shoot landscapes in RAW because big blue skies tend to posterize when curves are adjusted if I don't start with a 16bit tiff. I shoot magazine images in RAW because my editors want me to.

Everything else I shoot in jpeg.

A normal day of shooting for my clients whether business or wedding or editorial involves taking about of 1200 images. If I shoot compressed raw files in my D60 for 1200 frames at an average of 7.5mb per file I need 9 1GB microdrives, at least 15 gigs of hard drive to dedicate to the assignment until it drops off the horizon of needed reprints or adjustments for the client (usually about 3 months) then I have to archive all of that info on 22 CDs, make two copies of each CD and we have a spindle full after four hours of time dedicated to recording the discs and their duplicates...

That just doesn't work for me. Besides the storage issues, I am able to provide my clients with better prints from digital images captured at jpeg/high than I ever was able to provide from 35mm film and that was plenty good.

In the real world of professional photography every photographer I know shoots both. They are both important and most of my problems with my D60 are in regards to poor quality jpegs.

I'm glad you don't need to shoot jpeg. I do

Have a very raw evening.

-Craig
http://strongphotography.com
Why shoot in jpg, you are throwing your digital neg away. Shoot in
RAW and use NC to sharpen, alter contrast etc. If more were doing
this with the D100 I think that we would see far less talk about
sharpness,

Barry http://www.barrytheguide.com/Pages/D1Photos/index.htm

Who Dares Wins
 
because of the slow processing and write times for NEF - if you are into taking fast shots of your kids at play - as I am - JPEG is the only way to do this on the D100 - otherwise for portraits and scenery its NEF. Wish there was a faster way to shift between the two modes on the D100.
Barry http://www.barrytheguide.com/Pages/D1Photos/index.htm

Who Dares Wins
Below are the opinions of a former Canon evangelist (owning a D60
has tempered my enthusiasm).

Received my D100 five days ago and shot it alongside my D60 at a
wedding on Friday. Took some images in a fairly well-controlled
environment comparing D60/D1x/D100 files both raw and jpeg. Not
controlled enough to post samples without getting rightfully flamed
in the forums so another test is coming.

Nikon lens used for comparison: AF-S 28-70 2.8D
Canon lens used for comparison: 28-70 2.8L USM

Summary of my initial impression: My D100 produced STUNNING images.
Large fine jpeg images with low or no sharpening on the D100 blow
away the low sharpened (can't turn off agressive sharpening on the
D60) large fine jpegs from the D60 and beat out the D1x images by a
smaller margin.

D100 images:
+almost zero jpeg artifacts in jpeg large/fine
+images that were not sharpened in camera when shooting jpeg or
when converted to 16bit tifs from raw were amazingly sharp
+grain is tight (noise is low)
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D1x images:

+almost zero jpeg artifacts
+noise is low
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-images softer when not sharpened than the D100 images
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D60 images:

+RAW files sharpened when converting look beautiful, much better
than the in camera sharpening (less agressive)
+open sky and low contrast areas are very smooth indicating that
Canon's sharpening only affects the edges rather than the entire
image
-RAW files not sharpened when converting look like a bowl of slimy,
old oatmeal, yuk! (they are quite soft)
-jpeg large/fine images look very compressed and sharpening is
agressive even at the low sharpening setting
-sRGB native color space makes major adjustments in exposure and
color very difficult to pull off

In the field the D100 performed beautifully. 1600 ASA images look
about the same as 800 ASA D60 images if slightly cleaner. AF with
no AF assist light enabled worked miracles with scenes where I
could hardly see my subjects. The buffer cleared plenty fast for
jpeg images (useless for NEF or tiff files unless you absolutely
have to have a raw image to work from...that's ONE raw image, any
more and you'll need to take break while counting to
1000...slowly). ISO Auto setting is ingenious and works beautifully
but only is useful in shutter priority and manual modes (it appears
that you get 30 second exposures in aperture and program before it
shifts ISO up to give you more sensitivity). The battery lasts
forever (this coming from a D60 user who is used to long battery
life).

I returned the rental AF-S 28-70 f2.8D and 85 f1.8D this morning
and bought myself a used 28-85 2.8-4D for $375 in new condition at
Pro Photo Supply. I guess that means I'm committed and have a
boat-load of Canon gear to unload.

I'm thrilled that Nikon has given me a camera that provides the
image quality and operational responsiveness that Canon could not
seem to combine in one machine.
 
Glenn,

Too many controls like ISO are adjusted like you would on a film camera which you'd set maybe twice in an assignment. That is an area the D30 excels at. So many shortcuts. Fortunately the Auto ISO custom function solves this problem fairly well. White balance is tedious to change too...

Have a great one.

-Craig
http://strongphotography.com
because of the slow processing and write times for NEF - if you are
into taking fast shots of your kids at play - as I am - JPEG is
the only way to do this on the D100 - otherwise for portraits and
scenery its NEF. Wish there was a faster way to shift between the
two modes on the D100.
 
Barry,

sure NEFs are great. But the benefit of NEFs very often disappears on the way to print or press. JPEGs can be just as good when viewed by the end user. Would you claim that this D100 JPEG is less sharp:

http://www.pbase.com/image/2983474

Toralf
Barry http://www.barrytheguide.com/Pages/D1Photos/index.htm

Who Dares Wins
Below are the opinions of a former Canon evangelist (owning a D60
has tempered my enthusiasm).

Received my D100 five days ago and shot it alongside my D60 at a
wedding on Friday. Took some images in a fairly well-controlled
environment comparing D60/D1x/D100 files both raw and jpeg. Not
controlled enough to post samples without getting rightfully flamed
in the forums so another test is coming.

Nikon lens used for comparison: AF-S 28-70 2.8D
Canon lens used for comparison: 28-70 2.8L USM

Summary of my initial impression: My D100 produced STUNNING images.
Large fine jpeg images with low or no sharpening on the D100 blow
away the low sharpened (can't turn off agressive sharpening on the
D60) large fine jpegs from the D60 and beat out the D1x images by a
smaller margin.

D100 images:
+almost zero jpeg artifacts in jpeg large/fine
+images that were not sharpened in camera when shooting jpeg or
when converted to 16bit tifs from raw were amazingly sharp
+grain is tight (noise is low)
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D1x images:

+almost zero jpeg artifacts
+noise is low
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-images softer when not sharpened than the D100 images
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D60 images:

+RAW files sharpened when converting look beautiful, much better
than the in camera sharpening (less agressive)
+open sky and low contrast areas are very smooth indicating that
Canon's sharpening only affects the edges rather than the entire
image
-RAW files not sharpened when converting look like a bowl of slimy,
old oatmeal, yuk! (they are quite soft)
-jpeg large/fine images look very compressed and sharpening is
agressive even at the low sharpening setting
-sRGB native color space makes major adjustments in exposure and
color very difficult to pull off

In the field the D100 performed beautifully. 1600 ASA images look
about the same as 800 ASA D60 images if slightly cleaner. AF with
no AF assist light enabled worked miracles with scenes where I
could hardly see my subjects. The buffer cleared plenty fast for
jpeg images (useless for NEF or tiff files unless you absolutely
have to have a raw image to work from...that's ONE raw image, any
more and you'll need to take break while counting to
1000...slowly). ISO Auto setting is ingenious and works beautifully
but only is useful in shutter priority and manual modes (it appears
that you get 30 second exposures in aperture and program before it
shifts ISO up to give you more sensitivity). The battery lasts
forever (this coming from a D60 user who is used to long battery
life).

I returned the rental AF-S 28-70 f2.8D and 85 f1.8D this morning
and bought myself a used 28-85 2.8-4D for $375 in new condition at
Pro Photo Supply. I guess that means I'm committed and have a
boat-load of Canon gear to unload.

I'm thrilled that Nikon has given me a camera that provides the
image quality and operational responsiveness that Canon could not
seem to combine in one machine.
--
---
Toralf Sandåker, writer and consultant, Norway
 
Craig Mate,

I love your work, particually the Infrared pics. What lens and filter did you use?

Your work is very different from most of the Wedding Shots that I see here, most are no more than snap shots. Yours is real Art...
I take note of all your points.
How do your clients like your approach?

Barry
Why shoot in jpg, you are throwing your digital neg away. Shoot in
RAW and use NC to sharpen, alter contrast etc. If more were doing
this with the D100 I think that we would see far less talk about
sharpness,
If more were doing this with the D100 we would see far more mental
illness in the photographic community.

Word association, what's the first thing that comes to mind? Water
torture!

I am paid to capture moments. Every aspect of the photograph is
secondary to how real and important and captivating the moment I
capture is. If shooting RAW means I can shoot half as many frames
as I can in in jpeg which, in the case of the D100, is nearly
identical to what a tiff would be from a raw of the same scene why
would I shoot raw?

I shoot most portraits in RAW because I want to have more control
over skitones and highlights. I shoot landscapes in RAW because big
blue skies tend to posterize when curves are adjusted if I don't
start with a 16bit tiff. I shoot magazine images in RAW because my
editors want me to.

Everything else I shoot in jpeg.

A normal day of shooting for my clients whether business or wedding
or editorial involves taking about of 1200 images. If I shoot
compressed raw files in my D60 for 1200 frames at an average of
7.5mb per file I need 9 1GB microdrives, at least 15 gigs of hard
drive to dedicate to the assignment until it drops off the horizon
of needed reprints or adjustments for the client (usually about 3
months) then I have to archive all of that info on 22 CDs, make two
copies of each CD and we have a spindle full after four hours of
time dedicated to recording the discs and their duplicates...

That just doesn't work for me. Besides the storage issues, I am
able to provide my clients with better prints from digital images
captured at jpeg/high than I ever was able to provide from 35mm
film and that was plenty good.

In the real world of professional photography every photographer I
know shoots both. They are both important and most of my problems
with my D60 are in regards to poor quality jpegs.

I'm glad you don't need to shoot jpeg. I do

Have a very raw evening.

-Craig
http://strongphotography.com
Why shoot in jpg, you are throwing your digital neg away. Shoot in
RAW and use NC to sharpen, alter contrast etc. If more were doing
this with the D100 I think that we would see far less talk about
sharpness,

Barry http://www.barrytheguide.com/Pages/D1Photos/index.htm

Who Dares Wins
 
Toralf,

I would like to see the orginal NEF file to this pic? Is it available to download. I must admit that it looks resonabley sharp, but it lacks something. Maybe needs to be a bit brighter. I would like to check out the NEF so I can see what I can make of it>

Barry

Who Dares Wins
sure NEFs are great. But the benefit of NEFs very often disappears
on the way to print or press. JPEGs can be just as good when viewed
by the end user. Would you claim that this D100 JPEG is less sharp:

http://www.pbase.com/image/2983474

Toralf
Barry http://www.barrytheguide.com/Pages/D1Photos/index.htm

Who Dares Wins
Below are the opinions of a former Canon evangelist (owning a D60
has tempered my enthusiasm).

Received my D100 five days ago and shot it alongside my D60 at a
wedding on Friday. Took some images in a fairly well-controlled
environment comparing D60/D1x/D100 files both raw and jpeg. Not
controlled enough to post samples without getting rightfully flamed
in the forums so another test is coming.

Nikon lens used for comparison: AF-S 28-70 2.8D
Canon lens used for comparison: 28-70 2.8L USM

Summary of my initial impression: My D100 produced STUNNING images.
Large fine jpeg images with low or no sharpening on the D100 blow
away the low sharpened (can't turn off agressive sharpening on the
D60) large fine jpegs from the D60 and beat out the D1x images by a
smaller margin.

D100 images:
+almost zero jpeg artifacts in jpeg large/fine
+images that were not sharpened in camera when shooting jpeg or
when converted to 16bit tifs from raw were amazingly sharp
+grain is tight (noise is low)
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D1x images:

+almost zero jpeg artifacts
+noise is low
+native Adobe RGB color space makes for much more latitude in
making substantial adjustments
-images softer when not sharpened than the D100 images
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges

D60 images:

+RAW files sharpened when converting look beautiful, much better
than the in camera sharpening (less agressive)
+open sky and low contrast areas are very smooth indicating that
Canon's sharpening only affects the edges rather than the entire
image
-RAW files not sharpened when converting look like a bowl of slimy,
old oatmeal, yuk! (they are quite soft)
-jpeg large/fine images look very compressed and sharpening is
agressive even at the low sharpening setting
-sRGB native color space makes major adjustments in exposure and
color very difficult to pull off

In the field the D100 performed beautifully. 1600 ASA images look
about the same as 800 ASA D60 images if slightly cleaner. AF with
no AF assist light enabled worked miracles with scenes where I
could hardly see my subjects. The buffer cleared plenty fast for
jpeg images (useless for NEF or tiff files unless you absolutely
have to have a raw image to work from...that's ONE raw image, any
more and you'll need to take break while counting to
1000...slowly). ISO Auto setting is ingenious and works beautifully
but only is useful in shutter priority and manual modes (it appears
that you get 30 second exposures in aperture and program before it
shifts ISO up to give you more sensitivity). The battery lasts
forever (this coming from a D60 user who is used to long battery
life).

I returned the rental AF-S 28-70 f2.8D and 85 f1.8D this morning
and bought myself a used 28-85 2.8-4D for $375 in new condition at
Pro Photo Supply. I guess that means I'm committed and have a
boat-load of Canon gear to unload.

I'm thrilled that Nikon has given me a camera that provides the
image quality and operational responsiveness that Canon could not
seem to combine in one machine.
--
---
Toralf Sandåker, writer and consultant, Norway
 
Barry,

there is no NEF. This is shot as JPEG Fine. It is slightly sharpened to print well and should be printed to be judged correctly (Amount 170, radius 0.2, 0 threshold). Please download it and view it in Photoshop assigning sRGB profile to it (embedded). Have a look at the File info as well.

I have plenty of NEFs as well. They have the benefit of making it possible to change exposure, white balance, etc. after shooting. Many times I use them with the camera settings after checking them. In those cases I can see no differences in print if I use JPEG instead.

Toralf
Toralf,
I would like to see the orginal NEF file to this pic? Is it
available to download. I must admit that it looks resonabley sharp,
but it lacks something. Maybe needs to be a bit brighter. I would
like to check out the NEF so I can see what I can make of it>

Barry

Who Dares Wins
--
---
Toralf Sandåker, writer and consultant, Norway
 
-sharpening adds noise to open sky and low contrast areas rather
than only sharpening the edges
The Unsharp masking in Photoshop has a third setting called threshold which if you set it at (about) 4 will not sharpen the pixel grain in the sky (noise) or low contrast areas. Any edge with more than 4 levels of difference will get the sharpening but below 4 gets none. My sharpening figures on an unsharpened file is 300/0.5/4 for a 3000x2000 image.
Rinus
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top