In-Camera Sharpening - Good or Bad?

[Cooter]

I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
program.

[Matti Vuori]

"Cooter" <bigfoot_7001@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:YaAQa.273868$jp.7630257@twister.southeast.rr. com:

> I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
> in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
> program.

Other options than what?

If you always postprocess the images, turn in-camera sharpening off,
because:
* Sharpening should always be the last step in image correction
* You have more control over the process
* Softer images compress better in camera, thus giving you better quality
(the results depend on the camera model used)

--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>

[Chuck Gadd]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:41:44 GMT, "Cooter" <bigfoot_7001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
>in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
>program.

I always set the camera to soft, and do all sharpening on my PC.

One example where this is VERY important is when I'm taking pictures
at my son's baseball games. On most fields, there is a chain-link
fence visible in the pictures of the batters. If I sharpen the
entire picture, the sharpened chain link fence detracts from the
picture. I use the editing programs to only sharpen around the
players.




Chuck Gadd
[url]http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua[/url]

[JPS@no.komm]

In message <YaAQa.273868$jp.7630257@twister.southeast.rr.com> ,
"Cooter" <bigfoot_7001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
>in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
>program.

Sharpening increases contrast, pixel to pixel. If you sharpen something
too much, and then do any color balancing or levels changes, you will
stand the chance of clipping pixels, or losing them in the shadows. If
you do any perspective or lens corrections on an image, the sharpening
radius will vary throughout the image. If you resize the image, the
sharpening will change.

Sharpening is really something that should be fine-tuned to the medium
and resolution in which something is displayed. Generally speaking, it
is better to leave the image camera-soft, and only sharpen when you make
a file for display, or you go to print.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>

><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

[Rafe B.]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 15:41:44 GMT, "Cooter" <bigfoot_7001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>I'd be interested in other opinions as to whether it is better to use
>in-camera sharpening, or turn sharpening off and use an external editing
>program.

I agree with all of the responses offered so far.

Sharpening pushes tones toward the extremes,
so risks loss of information.

Sharpening should be done at the final resolution
of the image, whether it be for print or for display.
In general, sharpening is the last step in image-
editing, and ideally one should "reserve" some
tonal range for that step.

If you sharpen in-camera, you limit future uses of
the same image.


rafe b.
[url]http://www.terrapinphoto.com[/url]

[Paul]

"Rafe B." <net> wrote in message
news:com... 
>
>
> I agree with all of the responses offered so far.
>
> Sharpening pushes tones toward the extremes,
> so risks loss of information.
>
> Sharpening should be done at the final resolution
> of the image, whether it be for print or for display.
> In general, sharpening is the last step in image-
> editing, and ideally one should "reserve" some
> tonal range for that step.
>
> If you sharpen in-camera, you limit future uses of
> the same image.[/ref]

I agree completely, particularly with the "loss of information" statement:
once information is gone, all the Photoshop skills in the world ain't gonna
bring it back. Sharpen pictures outside the camera, as needed.

Sadly, I think in-camera sharpening is pushed more by marketing than by
necessity and I wish camera manufacturers would allow users even more
latitude in choosing what kind and degree of in-camera processing to be
employed, even for non-DSLR, mid-priced cameras. I still have and
occasionally use an old C-2500L and Olympus nearly ruined the camera's
output by insisting upon a hard-edged contrast enhancement scheme in the
camera's software.