Re: Disturbing trend with some DSLRs

John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:

And as for softer RAWS, I note that some camera makers actually go so
far as to sneakily sharpen their "RAW" images in the camera, no doubt
in an attempt to impress comparative reviewers and test chart
photographers. If this is the end of that sneaky practice then I
welcome it.

I have no idea about in-camera sharpening of raw images, however, you do
have to watch the default sharpening level of Adobe's raw import into
CS3. It is set at a value of 25 (whatever that actually means). I set
it to 0 for import and use the Unsharp mask for the final work.

It's called capture sharpening, as few cameras, afaik, sharpen RAW images. It's generally thought a good thing, and is quite mild, and does not take the place of output sharpening.

It's a horrible thing! I posted about it soon after I got my 135mm
f/1.8 lens. The CS3 raw import at a sharpening value of 25 (default)
created diagonal line jaggies in the imported image. Once I backed it
off completely, and then imported my images, those jaggies disappeared.

(And later discovered that it can be set "for display only" in the raw import with no effect on the image loaded into CS3).

While I seldom use ACR (via CS3), the RAW engine is the same in LR as ACR, and I've never seen such artifacts. Would you send me the RAW file? I shan't do anything with it other than test.
Simply put [Image test] in subject to get past my filters.

All right- got both the jpeg and RAW image without hassle. When I examine that detail at 2:1 and 4:1, I see the jaggies on the edge of that petal, which become slightly less visible if the capture sharpening is turned down to 0. Very slightly. At the same time, probably the edge contrast taken away takes away from the sharpness of the final photo, though I'd also wager that it'd be completely undetectable at normal print size. Viewing at 1:1 or below, it's almost unnoticeable.

--
John McWilliams
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Narrowing It Down
    ... Sony and Pentax are both capable of producing images that are just as ... and processed in camera. ... RAW may be handy but a bit overblown. ... Most cameras that support RAW have the option to embed a JPEG file inside the RAW file as well, which means you can crank out the pre-processed JPEGs all day long and still have the option to go to the RAW for further tweaking if necessary. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Olympus E300 image quality
    ... It was shot as a RAW file and this RAW file was developed in Olympus studio ... so any camera settings in the exif file are meaningless. ... I convert to sRGB for web display images. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: WHAT DEFINES ANY PARTICULAR MODEL OF A CAMERA "PROFESSIONAL"?
    ... tweak RAW files. ... would rather spend time shooting photos then tweaking raw images. ... get the color right on your computer then in the camera. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: Canon 17 - 40mm F/4 L lens - Help PLEASE
    ... I was not wanting to do much in camera processing, ... I very mush take your point with respect to RAW. ... >> Do you have any quick guide or advice on 'in camera' sharpening? ... >worth, is to leave the images as unmodified as you can in camera, and do ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: OT: GIMP query
    ... graphs I can see when looking at the raw data of the pic on the camera, ... project) have the time to do post-production on 300+ images. ... Bracketing has become almost unnecessary with Raw images. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)