Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Preferable to sharpen in camera or in Photoshop?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
December 27, 2004 11:41:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with
Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera
instead?
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:41:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Burt" <buphc@taconic.net> wrote in message
news:u640t05erg332n18jn0h5jmhubf4s3vndp@4ax.com...
> I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
> preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with
> Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera
> instead?

Have you noticed any difference either way?
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 11:41:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene, what would be a good reason for anyone to keep the original, not
altered photo, if you are satisfied with the sharpening?
Related resources
December 27, 2004 4:48:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Burt" <buphc@taconic.net> wrote in message
news:u640t05erg332n18jn0h5jmhubf4s3vndp@4ax.com...
> I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
> preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with
> Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera
> instead?

My understanding is that you would probably get better sharpening in your
editing software, rather than letting the camera do some sharpening (and you
doing subsequent sharpening in yourpost-shoot editing).
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 4:56:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Burt <buphc@taconic.net> wrote in news:u640t05erg332n18jn0h5jmhubf4s3vndp@
4ax.com:

> I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
> preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with
> Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera
> instead?

According to my humble opinion, you shall always do sharpening as the
last modification of the picture. Sharpening is a destructive operation
and it is best to have at least one original without sharpening.

Now - it all depends of course. If it is just pictures from a
party and you never plan to do any modification. Then, it is
OK to apply in camera sharpening and even using a lower resolution.


/Roland
December 27, 2004 6:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roland Karlsson wrote:
> Burt <buphc@taconic.net> wrote in news:u640t05erg332n18jn0h5jmhubf4s3vndp@
> 4ax.com:
>
>
>>I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
>>preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with
>>Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera
>>instead?
>
>
> According to my humble opinion, you shall always do sharpening as the
> last modification of the picture. Sharpening is a destructive operation
> and it is best to have at least one original without sharpening.
>
> Now - it all depends of course. If it is just pictures from a
> party and you never plan to do any modification. Then, it is
> OK to apply in camera sharpening and even using a lower resolution.
>
>
> /Roland

For what are you saving the unsharpened original? If it needs
sharpening, sharpen it. If it's done right, it's done right. I suppose
that if you don't do it right, saving an original unsharpened would be
good until you can get a tool to do it right.

Clyde
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:02:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> For what are you saving the unsharpened original? If it needs
> sharpening, sharpen it. If it's done right, it's done right. I suppose
> that if you don't do it right, saving an original unsharpened would be
> good until you can get a tool to do it right.


Don't you expect to be better at this next year than you are this year?
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:40:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in news:S9Wzd.243111$5K2.18907
@attbi_s03:

> For what are you saving the unsharpened original? If it needs
> sharpening, sharpen it. If it's done right, it's done right. I suppose
> that if you don't do it right, saving an original unsharpened would be
> good until you can get a tool to do it right.

I always save the original from the camera. All
changes are more or less destructive.

Sharpening is a special case. It shall be done last.
So --- if you want to make some alterations to the
image - you must be able to redo the sharpening step.

BTW - I do not think that there is anything called
doing something right. There are only different
ways of doing it with different results.


/Roland
December 27, 2004 7:42:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darin Kaloyanov" <dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104164289.829059.58800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gene, what would be a good reason for anyone to keep the original, not
> altered photo, if you are satisfied with the sharpening?
>

One reason in favor of not using in-camera sharpening is that we often
sharpen as the last step in the editing process--which will result in
sharpening being applied twice.

If the intention is to print the image directly as it comes out of the
camera (i.e., with NO editing) then in-camera sharpening would be in order.
December 27, 2004 7:42:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
>
> If the intention is to print the image directly as it comes out of the
> camera (i.e., with NO editing) then in-camera sharpening would be in order.

This is correct. You never know, maybe you'd have the need to
interpolate the original to poster size some day in which case the
sharpening shouldn't be done until it's enlarged. You might not need
this but I did once.
December 27, 2004 7:55:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95CCB3B8D3A9Eklotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> Clyde <lughclyde@attbi.comedy> wrote in news:S9Wzd.243111$5K2.18907
> @attbi_s03:
>
> > For what are you saving the unsharpened original? If it needs
> > sharpening, sharpen it. If it's done right, it's done right. I suppose
> > that if you don't do it right, saving an original unsharpened would be
> > good until you can get a tool to do it right.
>
> I always save the original from the camera. All
> changes are more or less destructive.
>
> Sharpening is a special case. It shall be done last.
> So --- if you want to make some alterations to the
> image - you must be able to redo the sharpening step.
>
> BTW - I do not think that there is anything called
> doing something right. There are only different
> ways of doing it with different results.
>
>
> /Roland

You are right on that point. I would suggest only one thing more: by saving
the file in its least-edited state--as your "digital negative"--you keep
open your option to reedit it down the road, as your editing skills and/or
your editing software capabilities improve.

If you intend to edit the shot, it makes little sense to select in-camera
sharpening. If the camera is being used by a consumer, who intends to print
the image essentially as it was recorded on the memory card, then sharpening
would be appropriate.

In the final analysis, it is a question of how much of a perfectionist you
are.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 7:55:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:

> In the final analysis, it is a question of how
> much of a perfectionist you are.

I disagree. You don't have to be a perfectionist
to want a copy of the sensor output for further
processing later. If the image is sharpened in
camera, it has been irreversibly altered. Subsequent
changes to size (in particular), contrast, color,
brightness, white balance, etcetera will thus
be made on a sharpened image, causing artifacts
and distortion.

One of the advantages of digital photography is
the creation of a workflow of which exposure
is only the start. Manipulation of the image during
post-processing, then resizing and treatment for
a number of output media (various print or display
types) are a part of that work flow. Starting with
an image that has already been sharpened degrades
that work flow.

Now, if your workflow today is simply to take the
camera output to the drugstore for a print or
to send copies as is to your family via email, then
there is no problem using camera-sharpened files.

But suppose a year from now you have learned
some Photoshop technique and now work on
your images for print in various sizes to inkjet,
dye sub, photo print and display on Web, LCD
and CRT monitors. If you want to go back over
your older images and work on them, you'll only
have pre-sharpened ones to deal with. You'll kick
yourself, since sharpening parameters at the end of
the workflow can make an enormous difference in
the way an image looks.

There is a huge difference between sharpening
an image of a forest full of green leaves in low
diffuse light, sharpening an image of a brightly-
lit tropical horizon over a noon-time ocean beach,
and sharpening the image of the face of a child.

How edges are handled, and the amount of
sharpening to apply, are decisions that thousands
of words have been devoted to -- and it comes
down to preference in the end. That preference,
and that skill, is taken away when you simply
let the camera apply a universal routine.

It's not a matter of being a perfectionist, it's a
matter of using available tools -- or not. You might
say the same thing of a cook. One who makes a
spinach soufflé from scratch isn't a "perfectionist"
compared to one who buys the frozen Stouffer's
offering in a red box, and some might prefer the
Stouffer's. But the scratch cook exercises many
options and makes many decisions during the
course of her preparation, while the consumer
of the Stouffer's soufflé cannot make any decisions
at all, but must consume what is given to her.
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:31:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I just got a new Epson 2200 and I am going through my archives for photos
that will look good large (12x16).
In many cases my best photos have been heavily edited...lots of layers. That
is natural as those are the ones worthy of the extra effort. After editing
there might be several layers. By your way of thinking I would then sharpen
them and save the sharpened file. That would loose the layers. In my
workflow I save my layers and sharpen a copy. Sharpening is an art...the
degree of sharpening depends on the image, the printer, the size of print,
ect. I then print or upload or publish. Each use requires it's own degree of
sharpening.

Now, I have a new printer. I don't have to re-edit the photos...but if I
choose to I have the layers to remind me of what I felt necessary at the
time. But, I don't have to start from scratch...because I saved my layers.
Sharpening destroys the layers.




"Darin Kaloyanov" <dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104164289.829059.58800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gene, what would be a good reason for anyone to keep the original, not
> altered photo, if you are satisfied with the sharpening?
>
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:34:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

another point...what makes you think you will be satisfied next year with
what satisfied you last year...don't you expect to improve?


"Darin Kaloyanov" <dkaloyanov@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104164289.829059.58800@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gene, what would be a good reason for anyone to keep the original, not
> altered photo, if you are satisfied with the sharpening?
>
Anonymous
December 29, 2004 12:43:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Burt wrote:
> I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
> preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with
> Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera
> instead?


Though the question be a simple one, the answer is rather difficult to
correctly provide.

There are times when in-camera sharpening is permissible. Such as when
going directly from camera to printer. Then too, in-camera sharpening is
not the same in all makes and models of cameras.

One of my digital cameras is the Olympus C-5050 and I don't need to set
that camera to a sharpen mode. The photo is sharp without increasing the
setting.

There are times when it would be best to process sharpen in the
computer. When it's done in the computer, I have a method of using the
Unsharp filter which may be different from the way others may use Unsharp.

For dang sure, when using the computer I never work on an original. The
original is always saved along with the finished sharpened sized photo.

nick
!