Why is in-camera sharpening undesirable sometimes?

[Gregory Alter]

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess. With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with sharpening, I don't get it. I'd like to hear it from a fellow Sony forum member, such as Uly or Norm or...well there are a lot of knowledgeable types out there---before I head over to one of the sites that will explain it all in gory technical detail. And, examples from the beloved 707, pro and con, would be great.

--Greg Alter
[email protected]

 

[Ron Baker57358]

Gregory,

I am none of the folks you mentioned in your thread but this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. The "experts" say that in-camera anything (sharpening, color saturation, etc) is better in a program like PhotoShop and it gives you more control over the results. I have owed Nikon's Olympus, Canon, etc. They all do some in camera proocessing...some more than others. Personally, I don't like to post process my images. 99% of them are straight from the camera. I choose to do everything in-camera. I found the sharpening of the Nikon and OLY to be sufficient to meet my needs 95% of the time. With the 707, I've had to use levels to take out some red on faces using flash. That's been the extent. I have not felt the need to use in camera sharpening at all. I leave that at normal. That has been MY experience, YMMV.

Regards,

Ron

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it. I'd like to hear it from a fellow Sony
forum member, such as Uly or Norm or...well there are a lot of
knowledgeable types out there---before I head over to one of the
sites that will explain it all in gory technical detail. And,
examples from the beloved 707, pro and con, would be great.

--
Greg Alter
[email protected]

 

[You Wish]

In other words you are using in camera sharpening. The normal setting is sharpening to the degree that Sony feel most people desire. I leave mine set to -2 (no sharpening) these days and still don't feel the need to post sharpen.

I am none of the folks you mentioned in your thread but this is a
subject that is near and dear to my heart. The "experts" say that
in-camera anything (sharpening, color saturation, etc) is better in
a program like PhotoShop and it gives you more control over the
results. I have owed Nikon's Olympus, Canon, etc. They all do
some in camera proocessing...some more than others. Personally, I
don't like to post process my images. 99% of them are straight
from the camera. I choose to do everything in-camera. I found the
sharpening of the Nikon and OLY to be sufficient to meet my needs
95% of the time. With the 707, I've had to use levels to take out
some red on faces using flash. That's been the extent. I have not
felt the need to use in camera sharpening at all. I leave that at
normal. That has been MY experience, YMMV.

Regards,

Ron

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it. I'd like to hear it from a fellow Sony
forum member, such as Uly or Norm or...well there are a lot of
knowledgeable types out there---before I head over to one of the
sites that will explain it all in gory technical detail. And,
examples from the beloved 707, pro and con, would be great.

--
Greg Alter
[email protected]

 

[Andrew Cruickshank]

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it.

Once the in-camera sharpening has taken place you can't go
back - some information is lost. It's pretty much a one-way street.

If you think you can do better the Photoshop or another
image manipulation package then it's better to start with
an unprocessed image.

The same argument can be aplied to raw/tiff vs. Jpeg though
IME sharpening is more of an issue than moderate compression.
You see the sharpening artifacts as aliasing and boundary
effects on colour/contrast interfaces on the image. It's
obvoulsy subject dependent and dependig on how you process
images it may only be an issue if you crop and enlarge.

The one area where in-camera sharpening (and other processing)
might possibly be better is if it can be combined in some way with the
raw CCD processing (which involves some averaging).

Sony, Fuji et al understand this. But they also figure that only
a portion (probably small -- and decreasing as the market size
grows) of digicam users want to spend time in Photoshop or
or equivalent -- they want to take their shots direct from camera
to printer (or TV) or email with minimal hassle.

Most users would probably be happy if there were clearly
defined settings -- default targeted according to the target
user base of the camera -- where you can clearly switch visible
sharpening off.

I prefer it off -- though prior to having Photoshop I preferred
the maximum sharpening with my pevious Digicam.
-----------------Andrew.

 

[Ron Baker57358]

Yes! I have no problems whatsoever in doing so. See my gallery

http://www.pbase.com/ronb856/at_the_zoo&edit=Y

No post processing whatsoever on any pics in any of my galleries.

REgards,

Ron

I am none of the folks you mentioned in your thread but this is a
subject that is near and dear to my heart. The "experts" say that
in-camera anything (sharpening, color saturation, etc) is better in
a program like PhotoShop and it gives you more control over the
results. I have owed Nikon's Olympus, Canon, etc. They all do
some in camera proocessing...some more than others. Personally, I
don't like to post process my images. 99% of them are straight
from the camera. I choose to do everything in-camera. I found the
sharpening of the Nikon and OLY to be sufficient to meet my needs
95% of the time. With the 707, I've had to use levels to take out
some red on faces using flash. That's been the extent. I have not
felt the need to use in camera sharpening at all. I leave that at
normal. That has been MY experience, YMMV.

Regards,

Ron

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it. I'd like to hear it from a fellow Sony
forum member, such as Uly or Norm or...well there are a lot of
knowledgeable types out there---before I head over to one of the
sites that will explain it all in gory technical detail. And,
examples from the beloved 707, pro and con, would be great.

--
Greg Alter
[email protected]

 

[Ron Baker57358]

Very thoughtful explanation Andrew. I have not played around with the in-camera sharpening. I shoot at the highest resolution and I priny mostly 4x6 and 5x7. I have noticed no defects due to sharpening.

Regards,

Ron

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it.

Once the in-camera sharpening has taken place you can't go
back - some information is lost. It's pretty much a one-way street.

If you think you can do better the Photoshop or another
image manipulation package then it's better to start with
an unprocessed image.

The same argument can be aplied to raw/tiff vs. Jpeg though
IME sharpening is more of an issue than moderate compression.
You see the sharpening artifacts as aliasing and boundary
effects on colour/contrast interfaces on the image. It's
obvoulsy subject dependent and dependig on how you process
images it may only be an issue if you crop and enlarge.

The one area where in-camera sharpening (and other processing)
might possibly be better is if it can be combined in some way with the
raw CCD processing (which involves some averaging).

Sony, Fuji et al understand this. But they also figure that only
a portion (probably small -- and decreasing as the market size
grows) of digicam users want to spend time in Photoshop or
or equivalent -- they want to take their shots direct from camera
to printer (or TV) or email with minimal hassle.

Most users would probably be happy if there were clearly
defined settings -- default targeted according to the target
user base of the camera -- where you can clearly switch visible
sharpening off.

I prefer it off -- though prior to having Photoshop I preferred
the maximum sharpening with my pevious Digicam.

--
---------------
Andrew.

 

[Steven]

Less sharpening = less noise = Cleaner Images. Simple

Look at Phils Noise charts on any camera.--Steven

 

[Steven]

Love your Zoo shots. Cant wait to get my 707. I have the B300 lens and I will see how it performs hopefully like your lens. --Steven

 

[Pennypincher]

Some outstanding shots there...im especially impressed with how well the skin tones come out in the portraits.Dan

http://www.pbase.com/ronb856/at_the_zoo&edit=Y

No post processing whatsoever on any pics in any of my galleries.

REgards,

Ron

I am none of the folks you mentioned in your thread but this is a
subject that is near and dear to my heart. The "experts" say that
in-camera anything (sharpening, color saturation, etc) is better in
a program like PhotoShop and it gives you more control over the
results. I have owed Nikon's Olympus, Canon, etc. They all do
some in camera proocessing...some more than others. Personally, I
don't like to post process my images. 99% of them are straight
from the camera. I choose to do everything in-camera. I found the
sharpening of the Nikon and OLY to be sufficient to meet my needs
95% of the time. With the 707, I've had to use levels to take out
some red on faces using flash. That's been the extent. I have not
felt the need to use in camera sharpening at all. I leave that at
normal. That has been MY experience, YMMV.

Regards,

Ron

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it. I'd like to hear it from a fellow Sony
forum member, such as Uly or Norm or...well there are a lot of
knowledgeable types out there---before I head over to one of the
sites that will explain it all in gory technical detail. And,
examples from the beloved 707, pro and con, would be great.

--
Greg Alter
[email protected]

 

[Pennypincher]

Do you mean that if i shoot shots in the 707 in TIFF my shots arent sharpened in camera?I must so sharpening and adjust color myself? I must shoot in JPEG to get sharpening in camera? Id like to shoot most of my shots in TIFF so this is important to me.Dan

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it.

Once the in-camera sharpening has taken place you can't go
back - some information is lost. It's pretty much a one-way street.

If you think you can do better the Photoshop or another
image manipulation package then it's better to start with
an unprocessed image.

The same argument can be aplied to raw/tiff vs. Jpeg though
IME sharpening is more of an issue than moderate compression.
You see the sharpening artifacts as aliasing and boundary
effects on colour/contrast interfaces on the image. It's
obvoulsy subject dependent and dependig on how you process
images it may only be an issue if you crop and enlarge.

The one area where in-camera sharpening (and other processing)
might possibly be better is if it can be combined in some way with the
raw CCD processing (which involves some averaging).

Sony, Fuji et al understand this. But they also figure that only
a portion (probably small -- and decreasing as the market size
grows) of digicam users want to spend time in Photoshop or
or equivalent -- they want to take their shots direct from camera
to printer (or TV) or email with minimal hassle.

Most users would probably be happy if there were clearly
defined settings -- default targeted according to the target
user base of the camera -- where you can clearly switch visible
sharpening off.

I prefer it off -- though prior to having Photoshop I preferred
the maximum sharpening with my pevious Digicam.

--
---------------
Andrew.

 

[Gregory Alter]

Good question, Dan, but I have a feeling it does not matter the format you save in--the issue is whether you set the in camera sharpening back to minus 2 or not. I am likely to try it both ways, and this is very helpful. With my 505, I had all kinds of noise, but I never could figure the source. I was looking at some prints from last summer, very small--3x5--under a x8 loop. Lots of color noise, lots of noise in any sort of shadows, using a new commercially available ICC profile for the paper I was using. I suspect that I will appreciate the incam sharpening the Sony provides, but I would like to experiment with PS, too. The explanations have been great, and thanks to all.

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it.

Once the in-camera sharpening has taken place you can't go
back - some information is lost. It's pretty much a one-way street.

If you think you can do better the Photoshop or another
image manipulation package then it's better to start with
an unprocessed image.

The same argument can be aplied to raw/tiff vs. Jpeg though
IME sharpening is more of an issue than moderate compression.
You see the sharpening artifacts as aliasing and boundary
effects on colour/contrast interfaces on the image. It's
obvoulsy subject dependent and dependig on how you process
images it may only be an issue if you crop and enlarge.

The one area where in-camera sharpening (and other processing)
might possibly be better is if it can be combined in some way with the
raw CCD processing (which involves some averaging).

Sony, Fuji et al understand this. But they also figure that only
a portion (probably small -- and decreasing as the market size
grows) of digicam users want to spend time in Photoshop or
or equivalent -- they want to take their shots direct from camera
to printer (or TV) or email with minimal hassle.

Most users would probably be happy if there were clearly
defined settings -- default targeted according to the target
user base of the camera -- where you can clearly switch visible
sharpening off.

I prefer it off -- though prior to having Photoshop I preferred
the maximum sharpening with my pevious Digicam.

--
---------------
Andrew.

--Greg Alter [email protected]

 

[Ron Parr]

Just to add one more perspective on this: The amount of sharpening that is appropriate will depend upon several factors, including the amount of noise in the picture and the way the picture will be viewed.

To elaborate slightly:

For viewing on screen, you will get best results if you apply sharpening after you have done any size reductions or other image processing.

You may use one sharpening level for images that you intend to view on a CRT, another for images viewed on an LCD, and still another for your printer (and it could be different for every printer).

The amount of noise in an image will vary, even at the same ISO level. Images taken in lower light, or with shadow areas will tend to have more noise.

All of these suggest that there's no magic "right" level of sharpening and that a detail-conscious person will prefer to start with an image that has not already been tweaked and apply to level of tweaking appropriate to the final image. As others have pointed out, sharpening (esp. oversharpening) can cause irreversible changes in the image, so you don't want to do it unnecessarily.

That said, I find that sharpening level 0 on my S85 is usually good enough for most of my purposes. I intend to experiment with -2 some to see if this gives me more flexibility.

Ron Parr

 

[Andrew Cruickshank]

Do you mean that if i shoot shots in the 707 in TIFF my shots arent
sharpened in camera?

No.

What I was refering to was that in producing a Jpeg that
some information is lost and there can be visible effects on the
image as a result.

So a Jpeg is 'processed' in camera as well. However I think
(from what I've seen) that sharpening effects are useually
more obvious than compression.

-----------------Andrew.

 

[Mishik]

I own s75 and did some experiments on the in-camera sharpening issue.The result is-the in-camera sharpening algorithm is not nearly as good as various sharpening methods and actions available in photoshop.Since then i always use -2 sharpening.
Michael.

Ok, folks, I keep reading that Nikon intentionally does not do a
lot of in-cam sharpening, (I looked at the cp5000 stuff, today and
I don't think it is so bad, but there is some Sony pro and con over
there, too that I responded to...) Sony may do it a bit to excess.
With the color saturation issue, I really think I understand the
rudiments of it--if you oversaturate you lose the detail and it is
irretrievable since the color is simply maxed out. But with
sharpening, I don't get it. I'd like to hear it from a fellow Sony
forum member, such as Uly or Norm or...well there are a lot of
knowledgeable types out there---before I head over to one of the
sites that will explain it all in gory technical detail. And,
examples from the beloved 707, pro and con, would be great.

--
Greg Alter
[email protected]

--All the best,Michael