Parameter 1 or 2?.....

[Thomas Niemann]

Hmm... I just did. Couldn't see any difference in the final product. Might just be the image I was using. My test consisted of taking a raw image, applying 0 sharpening, then bumping sharpening to 50 (using the PS plugin). Resized the image and sharpened both. Had to apply more sharpening to the 0-sharpened one, but in the final analysis, I couldn't see any difference. Basing both on the same raw image is the best way to conduct this test. e.g., I'm using the exact same image as a basis for comparison.

If someone wants to reproduce my experiment, send me email and I'll give you links to full-sized images with 0 and 50 sharpening applied. I hesitate to post links to full-sized jpegs due to server overload. My email address can be found at http://epaperpress.com/psphoto (scroll to bottom). Use epp as your subject, and my spam filter will let you through.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6389806 . Be sure to check out my examples or try it for yourself if you're not convinced.

Bob

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/digitalphotography/learnmore/fixit/sharpening.asp

--
Thomas Niemann
http://epaperpress.com

--
Thomas Niemann
http://epaperpress.com

 

[- Bill -]

Please correct me if I'm wrong (still learning this stuff) ... if you save as a RAW file, it doesn't really matter how you adjust the camera because you can always change your mind later.

Also, does sharpness = -2 mean no sharpening, or does it mean an extra softening of the image ?

 

[vineviz]

Please correct me if I'm wrong (still learning this stuff) ... if
you save as a RAW file, it doesn't really matter how you adjust the
camera because you can always change your mind later.

Right. The parameter settings do not affect the RAW file itself, just the embedded JPEG.

Also, does sharpness = -2 mean no sharpening, or does it mean an
extra softening of the image ?

Sharpness -2 means minimal sharpening. In other words, it is the lowest sharpening you can get out of the camera, but it is still somewhat sharpened.

 

[innosonic.com]

The 0 setting is most natural in my opinion (overall image look).

And -2 or whatever the lowest setting is, my DR has not arrived yet, should be no sharpening or at least nearly no sharpening,

I really would not use parameter 1, this is beyond taste, this is already wrong, rather similar to Sony F707, really.

 

[Biu]

Depends on what your subject or scene is. Sometimes you want high saturation to enhance colour, sometimes you want less contrast for wedding, sometimes you want more subdue colour for portrait.

The best is to shoot in raw mode and select parameters at the post-processing stage. Other than sharpening, the raw convertor does a better job of exposure, saturation and contrast adjustments than Photoshop.
Biu

Well, after a day of shooting...I've found that the sharpening on
Parameter1 seems to be a bit more harsh than I would like. Not so
much, out of the camera, but when I apply my usual PS sharpening.
I've seen that if you use Parameter 2, the sharpening is much less.
Which does you guys like and are there any other pros to using the
2nd setting?...

Thanks!

Scott

 

[ErikH]

I've always sharpened my photos after resizing, however I don't believe that MS is wrong. Note that they don't say to sharpen before resizing but they say to sharpen before AND after.

You absolutely should sharpen after as resizing causes an appearance of softness.

Erik

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6389806 . Be sure to check out my examples or try it for yourself if you're not convinced.

Bob

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/digitalphotography/learnmore/fixit/sharpening.asp

--
Thomas Niemann
http://epaperpress.com

--
ErikH
http://www.pbase.com/snapman/best_of_em

 

[Biu]

I share the same view with you. Afterall, this is why we call ourselves photographers rather than computer greek. I enjoy viewing through the viewfinder rather than looking at the monitor.
Biu

Maybe I am a bad post-processor but I am imho not so sure about
this. I spent a lot of time with longer than a year. I lived in
Photoshop to find out that this all is not necessary. Better go out
shooting.

Just my personal opinion, not very popular.

Parameter 2 and nothing else - my way.

 

[vineviz]

Or, at least Canon agrees with them.

The level of sharpening applied by Parameter 2 (Sharpness=0) is what Canon believes to be the appropriate level of sharpening BEFORE post-processing. This is entirely consistent with Microsoft's advice to skip the sharpening step pre-resizing if the camera is sharpening internally.

I assume that the higher level of sharpening applied by the 300D in Parameter 1 is intended to improve the print quality for the average consumer, who will do little or no post-processing.

 

[emklap182922]

Well, after a day of shooting...I've found that the sharpening on
Parameter1 seems to be a bit more harsh than I would like. Not so
much, out of the camera, but when I apply my usual PS sharpening.
I've seen that if you use Parameter 2, the sharpening is much less.
Which does you guys like and are there any other pros to using the
2nd setting?...

Thanks!

Scott

 

[Kevin Bjorke32030]

The best you can get is ADVICE. If there was a single correct way to sharpen, all programs and cameras would follow it. But the truth is sometimes you want acutance, sometimes you want lack of artifacts, sometimes there are key features that you need to preserve regardless of resizing, even if it requires "undue" exageration of those features (sharpen before resize does just that).

 

[vineviz]

you are saying that there no one right level of sharpening, a stance which is hard to oppose.

That doesn't mean there isn't an optimal process, however. Besides, you really have no choice since any image you pull from the camera is already sharpened anyway.

The only remaining questions are:

1) How much in camera sharpening do you want?

2) Whether, when, and how much sharpening do you apply in post-processing?

 

[Kevin Bjorke32030]

you are saying that there no one right level of sharpening, a
stance which is hard to oppose.

That doesn't mean there isn't an optimal process, however.

Actually, that's exactly what I mean. There isn't any single optimal process that's applicable to all images. A resize is a function of the input pixels and their neighbors. So is any sharpening process. The pixel regions may be of differing shapes and sizes. If we call the resize function "R()" and the sharpening function "S()" then it's fairly certain that

R(S(p)) != S(R(p))

especially when instead of pixel "p" we're talking about "p" and some varying number of weighted pixel neighbors.

It's even further-unlikely that either method would give the same result as just shooting the original pixels to the exact size of the final result. That's why there are dozens upon dozens of different resharpening filters, programs, PhotoShop actions, and many of them have quite a few different user-control sliders and other inputs. Why do you htink Phootshop provide a number of different methods for resizing? Why isn't everything just "bilinear"? It's not because one method or another is faster or slower, it's because each has a particular visual character. understanding these characters can ultimately have a tremendous impact on the quality of your final results.

Rigidly applying any single one-method-fits-all method is no more "correct" or "optimal" than declaring, say, all 35mm portraits should be made with an 85mm lens.

 

[vineviz]

vineviz wrote:

SNIP

That doesn't mean there isn't an optimal process, however.

Actually, that's exactly what I mean. There isn't any single
optimal process that's applicable to all images. A resize is a

SNIP

That's why there are dozens upon dozens of
different resharpening filters, programs, PhotoShop actions, and
many of them have quite a few different user-control sliders and
other inputs.

Ok, what I meant by process is "an order in which steps are taken". I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was an optimum resize or sharpening algorithm.

What I intended to suggest was that some sharpening needs to happen BEFORE resizing/post-processing (to correct for the diffusion created by the low-pass filter, for instance) and more sharpening may need to happen AFTER resizing/post-processing to compensate for resamping-induced softness, the printing technique involved, etc.

The first step always happens on the 300D, because the camera always sharpens the image before writing the file. We can tell the camera to apply minimal sharpening, and then do it again in Photoshop, FVU, C1, etc to suit our techinical or artistic needs, but it always happens at least a little.

The second step is obviously up to us to apply, and all of the considerations you highlighted in your post clearly come into play.

 

[Lngmntco]

P2 is cleaner, lets you call the final shots during proccessing without prejudice. P1 is for basic P&S'ers.

Not for me. Raw is RAW here, not jpg, like some here want you to believe.

see post at:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=6613770

Well, after a day of shooting...I've found that the sharpening on
Parameter1 seems to be a bit more harsh than I would like. Not so
much, out of the camera, but when I apply my usual PS sharpening.
I've seen that if you use Parameter 2, the sharpening is much less.
Which does you guys like and are there any other pros to using the
2nd setting?...

Thanks!

Scott

 

[Kevin Bjorke32030]

Ok, what I meant by process is "an order in which steps are taken".
I didn't mean to imply that I thought there was an optimum resize
or sharpening algorithm.

Isn't "an order in which steps are taken" exactly the definition of "algorithm"?

--
http://www.photorant.com/