How much do you rely on post-processing to Sharpen Images?

Yes, I hope so. I knew you were being good natured, btw.

There is some confusion here. There are basically two factors involved here:

1 - Mechanical sharpness - this is obtained by good lenses, minimal camera movement, and fast enough shutter speed to stop all subject movement and minimize camera movement (if hand holding). You MUST have good "mechanical" sharpness to end up with a sharp picture.

2 - Digital Sharpness - it has been explained above and relates to "edges" in the photograph. This is best done with the computer through your editing program. Your computer program is far more powerful than your camera computer. THAT is why it is best to do this after capture.

The combination of proper original capture and proper digital processing gives you the best shot at a FINE photograph. You will not do your best without doing your best in both of the above examples.

Dale53
http://www.pbase.com/dale53

and buy Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen. It gives you control; you can undo the sharpening if you don't like the result.

Ansel Adams, Playboy, Life, Time, National Geographic all PP to some degree. Unsharp mask has been used for years on film photographs. Many people, myself included, just about gave up on dslr because it was too much work after the shot. Now I love it because I have total control over the PP process. I read, and I sure wish I could find the two articles, one is that Ansel Adams never stopped post processing his shots. Meaning that decades after he took them he was still tinkering with them in the dark room to improve the final outcome. And two was written by Chuck Westfall Director/Technical Information for Canon concerning when and how sharpening is applied in camera. The long and the short of is the camera does all PP after the shot. The problem with that is the camera only uses pre designed settings. We can sharpen, contrast etc to our liking based on each shot in our digital darkroom.

The trick is we all have to strive to start with the best shot we can achieve and then improve upon it in our digital dark room. Much the same way a recording studio improves upon a great performance.

So in answer to your question you should rely heavily on PP to sharpen an in focus image. No amount of usm is going to make an oof shot in focus. I feel you should shoot in raw. Strive for good focus, proper exposure and composition. Then improve upon it with post processing. With digital sensors it is the only way to get a truly tack sharp image because the sensor uses an anti aliasing filter to avoid jaggies which soften the image from the moment it was captured.

LovCom said:

How much do you rely on post-processing to sharpen images?

It seems to me that it is best to sharpen at time the picture is
taken, and that any sharpening in post-processing does not have as
good effect then doing so during the shot.

What is your views on this?

Dan
--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Click to expand...

--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777

I sure wish I could get to the point like you do. You said what I said just a whole lot shorter. I have been known to be long winded. You made good points, short and sweet.

Robert D. McGee1 said:

There is some confusion here. There are basically two factors
involved here:

1 - Mechanical sharpness - this is obtained by good lenses, minimal
camera movement, and fast enough shutter speed to stop all subject
movement and minimize camera movement (if hand holding). You MUST
have good "mechanical" sharpness to end up with a sharp picture.

2 - Digital Sharpness - it has been explained above and relates to
"edges" in the photograph. This is best done with the computer
through your editing program. Your computer program is far more
powerful than your camera computer. THAT is why it is best to do
this after capture.

The combination of proper original capture and proper digital
processing gives you the best shot at a FINE photograph. You will
not do your best without doing your best in both of the above
examples.

Dale53
http://www.pbase.com/dale53

Click to expand...

--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777

i'm about the purchase a 10d and all the stuff to go with it. when i was doing my research, i was starting to get nervous because i kept coming across these threads that people were complaining about focus problems with the 10d - a lot of new 10d owners. i can't help but think that maybe they were unclear (as i was) on this whole difference between mechanical sharpness and post processing sharpness.

anyway, i'm wondering if anyone out there can recommend a book or something that will talk more about this and other aspects of digital photography that are obviously different from film. like i said, i don't even have my 10d yet, maybe the instruction manual will explain more. but i just know that there is a lot about digital photography that i may have to learn the hard way. i'd rather read about it!

thanks,
amy

Here's an article that might be helpful for a start. http://www.shortcourses.com/editing/index.htm

Also do a search with Google for USM or UnsharpMask. Luminous Landscape has a good tutorial on it. I'd find it for you, but I'm expecting someone to pick me up for a shoot in a few minutes.

Juli,

Sorry to belabor this issue, but how can one sharpen a soft-focused image without damaging the image?

Put another way, how can one sharpen a soft image without artificial processing such as digital tricks manipulate the bytes in such a was as to "fool" the photographer?

I feel as though I'm not making myself clear here.

What I'm trying to point out is that to sharpen a soft image, the post-processor needs to "guess" and use artificial information to sharpen an image...this information NOT originating from the camera.

If you tell me you can soften a sharp image that came out of the camera, then I agree because the post-processor is using data that originated in the camera.

But if you tell me you can sharpen a soft image, then I have a problem with that because what you're asking of the post-program is to "add" data that never existed to begin with.

It seems that adding focus can leave artifacts and make the image look strange, too edgy, etc.

So if what I think is true, do we all agree that the best place to get sharp focus is during the time the shot is taken?

Dan

Juli Valley said:

There is a difference between soft focused images and out of focus
images. Soft focus is normal and can be sharpened. OOF can't.

Click to expand...

--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

LovCom said:

Juli,

Sorry to belabor this issue, but how can one sharpen a soft-focused
image without damaging the image?

Put another way, how can one sharpen a soft image without
artificial processing such as digital tricks manipulate the bytes
in such a was as to "fool" the photographer?

I feel as though I'm not making myself clear here.

What I'm trying to point out is that to sharpen a soft image, the
post-processor needs to "guess" and use artificial information to
sharpen an image...this information NOT originating from the camera.

If you tell me you can soften a sharp image that came out of the
camera, then I agree because the post-processor is using data that
originated in the camera.

But if you tell me you can sharpen a soft image, then I have a
problem with that because what you're asking of the post-program is
to "add" data that never existed to begin with.

Click to expand...

true, BUT THE CAMERA ALSO ADDS DATA THAT NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH ALSO. THE CAMERA IS POSTPROCESSING THE IMAGE, THE CAMERA IS POSTPROCESSING THE IMAGE IN JUST THE SAME WAY THAT PHOTOSHOP POST PROCESSES THE IMAGE.....THE CAMERA IS POSTPROCESSING THE IMAGE, THE CAMERA IS CHANGING THE IMAGE DATA.

**********************************************************

THE CAMERA TAKES THE TRUE ORIGINAL IMAGE AND THEN DISTORTS IT, IT FAKES IT, IT ADDS USM (or whatever).
**********************************************************

just because the camera does this after, doesnt make it more real than photoshop doing it after.

LovCom said:

It seems that adding focus can leave artifacts and make the image
look strange, too edgy, etc.

So if what I think is true, do we all agree that the best place to
get sharp focus is during the time the shot is taken?

Dan

Juli Valley said:

There is a difference between soft focused images and out of focus
images. Soft focus is normal and can be sharpened. OOF can't.

Click to expand...

--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Click to expand...

--

LovCom said:

It seems to me that it is best to sharpen at time the picture is
taken, and that any sharpening in post-processing does not have as
good effect then doing so during the shot.
What is your views on this?

Click to expand...

My view is that it's best to do everything you can to get a sharp image before you trip the shutter ( ie use a solid tripod and a good lens, set an optimum aperture value, focus carefully, and so on ), then to use sharpening tools in post to optimize that image for whatever you're going to do with it, whether that's post it on the web, or print it at 16x24 inches.

LovCom said:

One must strive for tack sharp focus at time the picture is shot.

Click to expand...

Of course. But that's not what most people are talking about.

LovCom said:

You can reliable soften a tack sharp, yea?

Click to expand...

There's optical sharpness -- which comes from good focus in a good lens -- and then there's digital sharpening -- a matter of adding local contrast throughout a photo that's already been captured.

LovCom said:

As for the sharpening paramter values in-camera? Do you or I know
when that takes effect? AS the 10D is taking the pic, or AFTER the
10D takes the pic? I think this might make a difference.

Click to expand...

It happens after the photo is captured, and it's a digital algorithm, like Photoshop's Unsharp Mask filter.

LovCom said:

Do you agree that RAW provides the ability to play with WB,
exposure, and perhaps other parameters, BUT not sharpening?

Click to expand...

RAW absolutely allows you to adjust sharpening. Sharpness ( from focusing, lens and lens aperture, and so on ) isn't the same thing as sharpening ( ramping up the contrast in a shot after it's been captured ).

sorry about all the yelling

lovecom you still have not clarified:

by "sharpening at the time of taking the shot" do you mean the sharpening settings in the camera or do you mean using good technique and lenses to get a properly focused image?

Ok Feivel,

I think I understand what you mean.

But to add to my confusion, I've seen posters that have written that by setting the in-camera sharpening parameter to 0, that does not turn sharpening off, but instead reduces sharpening.

Is that true? If this is the case, then sharpening happens all the time, and that the value of that parameter only controls to what extent.

Sorry but I'm trying to process through so much conflicting information here.

Please help me out here....I'm dying! lol

Dan

feivel said:

there must be some miscommunication here
what do you mean when you say there should be sharpening at the
time the picture is taken?
do you mean that it is important to have good focus?
if that is what you mean then you are correct.

but i think what you mean is that you think it's best if the
sharpenining is applied by the cameras software before the image is
recorded on the media.
if that is what you mean then you do not understand what is
happening here.

when you shoot a picture the sensor records the image, it has a
certain amount of sharpness AT THIS POINT.

now you can allow the camera to apply sharpening to that initial
image or not. if you dont apply the camera's sharpening to the
original image you can apply sharpening later in a manner that you
control. but in either case you are applying sharpening to that
original captured image. both the cameras software or your
computer editing software work on the SAME ORIGINAL IMAGE. the
only question is do you want your camera to apply it or do you want
to apply it yourself at a later stage

feivel
--

Click to expand...

--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Great response, Robert!

Robert D. McGee1 said:

There is some confusion here. There are basically two factors
involved here:

1 - Mechanical sharpness - this is obtained by good lenses, minimal
camera movement, and fast enough shutter speed to stop all subject
movement and minimize camera movement (if hand holding). You MUST
have good "mechanical" sharpness to end up with a sharp picture.

2 - Digital Sharpness - it has been explained above and relates to
"edges" in the photograph. This is best done with the computer
through your editing program. Your computer program is far more
powerful than your camera computer. THAT is why it is best to do
this after capture.

The combination of proper original capture and proper digital
processing gives you the best shot at a FINE photograph. You will
not do your best without doing your best in both of the above
examples.

Dale53
http://www.pbase.com/dale53

Click to expand...

--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

It's finally been explained by a few other posters below, but it's apparently a widely held misconception that USM, in camera or in Photoshop, etc., is sharpening the image. It really isn't. It exaggerates contrast between pixels of different tones. To the naked eye this gives the appearance of a "sharper" image, as can adding contrast to a low-contrast scene, but it's not at all what you get from using a sharp lens. A sharp lens records accurately, while USM actually adds false information to make an image appear sharper to the naked eye.

Printers have been doing this for years, long before digital cameras were invented. They did it by masking, hence the term "unsharp mask". Don't ask me how they did it. I owned a few print shops, but I left that up to the printing technicians.

Suffice it to say that USM should be the very last step before the image is printed.

When I post-process an image I do all the color balancing, level adjustments, cloning, healing, blurs, adjustment layer work... everything but USM, then save it. THEN I size, crop, and apply USM to the proper layer(s) and print it. Normally I don't even save the sharpened file, as I don't know what size I'll be printing any additional prints of that image. It's a very rare file I keep that's had USM applied to it. Once it's been sharpened it should not be resized.

I always post-process. Sharpening, especially high frequency sharpening is my last step before saving to my final file format.

LovCom said:

How much do you rely on post-processing to sharpen images?

It seems to me that it is best to sharpen at time the picture is
taken, and that any sharpening in post-processing does not have as
good effect then doing so during the shot.

What is your views on this?

Dan
--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Click to expand...

LovCom said:

Ok Feivel,

I think I understand what you mean.

But to add to my confusion, I've seen posters that have written
that by setting the in-camera sharpening parameter to 0, that does
not turn sharpening off, but instead reduces sharpening.

Is that true? If this is the case, then sharpening happens all the
time, and that the value of that parameter only controls to what
extent.

Sorry but I'm trying to process through so much conflicting
information here.

Please help me out here....I'm dying! lol

Dan

Click to expand...

depends on the way the manufacturer has set up the system and what values they happen to call various postprocessing sharpness additions.

i believe on the 10D, with a setting of zero, the camera only adds a little post-processing, supposedly just enough to counteract the artificial softening that the camera adds as a necessary side effect to the anti-alias filter (that softens the image in a particular manner to prevent moire )problems)

Hi Dan

I usually take photos in Raw mode. I then edit white balance, correct exposure and set sharpening to 0 and load into Photoshop. I may then alter levels curves to suit my taste in the photo. I blow up to 100% and look at the detail in the photograph to see if it needs sharpening ready for printing. If they need sharpening I use Fred Mirandas 10D Cspro sharpening action but I only tend to sharpen parts of my photographs that need sharpening. Portraits for examply I will sharpen eyes lips and hair but not the rest of the shot.

Yes this takes time but I only process the images I think are worthy of processing. Out of a days shoot of say 100 images I may only get 15-20 keepers or I might get 30-40. All depends.

Compare this to me sending a roll of Astia Provia or Velvia to Fujilab, getting the slides back and scanning them into the computer, it's a walk in the park

Howie

Great response, Mike!

Mike Morbach said:

LovCom said:

How much do you rely on post-processing to sharpen images?

It seems to me that it is best to sharpen at time the picture is
taken, and that any sharpening in post-processing does not have as
good effect then doing so during the shot.

What is your views on this?

Dan
--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Click to expand...

--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777

Click to expand...

--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Depending on the strength of the anti alias filter, which softens the image to prevent jaggies, will determine the amount of after shot usm required. All, repeat, all sharpening, contrast, saturation etc is done after the shot whether in camera or not.

The dilemma is if you want that really eye popping photo out of a digital you will have to pp.

You are correct when you say these are tricks, etc to fool the photographer. This has been the nature of photography since the invention of the darkroom. All of these terms we see such as usm, cut and paste, dodge, burn, blur etc have been around long before the invention of the PC.

LovCom said:

Sorry to belabor this issue, but how can one sharpen a soft-focused
image without damaging the image?

Put another way, how can one sharpen a soft image without
artificial processing such as digital tricks manipulate the bytes
in such a was as to "fool" the photographer?

Juli Valley said:

There is a difference between soft focused images and out of focus
images. Soft focus is normal and can be sharpened. OOF can't.

Click to expand...

--
LovCom

It's the picture, stupid! ;-)

Click to expand...

--
Mike Morbach
I'm still learning
http://www.pbase.com/kathy777
http://www.pbase.com/spike777