image sharpness

[walter_groves1]

as i have mentioned in a few other ?'s i am new to digital. i have a d200 and have found

that every photo seems to benefit from some photoshop sharpening. if i were to shoot

1000 photos at a wedding does this mean that i would need to go through every single

one and add sharpening before going to print. does the in camera sharpening do the same

thing?

[walter_groves1]

i just wanted to add, should i not be able to make a straight print from a $3000.00 camera

kit and not have to do something to evry photo in photoshop first?

[yanglee]

Photoshop has a batch mode, you can record actions and then replay those action in batch

mode on an entire folder/directory, then save every modified file into a new folder/directory.

Canon's own software also allows batch mode. Nikon should have those functions. Good

luck.

[troyammons]

> as i have mentioned in a few other ?'s i am new to digital. i have a d200 and have found that every photo seems to benefit from some photoshop sharpening. if i were to shoot 1000 photos at a wedding does this mean that i would need to go through every single one and add sharpening before going to print. does the in camera sharpening do the same thing?

 

I would not use in camera sharpeneing. Sharpening is something you definately want to control. If you are printing at 4x6 it probably does not matter either way, but you dont want to see sharpening halos on your one prize enlargement.

 

Slightly OT......

 

From what I have read that and mostly color is why some pros went back to film.

Basically it was easier for them to shoot film, have it processed and scanned at a shop, rather that go through the photoshop routine for every photo, but that was mostly concerning color. Personally i do think film color is a little better, but it really depends on the D camera.

 

Dont get me wrong because I use both. I am not a this or that only advocate, but IMO digital files do need work. A lot of tweaking and sharpening, but film needs sharpening too. Just not as much color work.

 

Since you are new you might want to try below sometime if you want more color control .....

 

One thing that helps a lot is to shoot raw 100% of the time, use a custom WB, especially in mixed light, and develop custom profiles and make sure your system is balanced. I know raw might seem like even more work, but its worth it. IMO in camera processing just misses sometimes.

 

Another benefit is the white balance is just a tag on the raw file.

 

Shooting raw also gives you an out of the camera file to go back too in case you blow it. Also carries more color info than a jpeg.

[daniel_taylor]

There's nothing wrong with using in camera sharpening (or the other parameters for that matter). Run some tests (including prints at different sizes), and if you like one of the presets, use it.

 

Regarding the film comments, scanned film requires considerably more work, especially in the color department. But with film you can find a lab that will do the work for you. This isn't much different from letting a set of computer parameters work for you though.

[anupam]

<i>should i not be able to make a straight print from a $3000.00 camera kit and not have to do something to evry photo in photoshop first?</i>

 

<p>Of course you can set everything in camera or even as a batch in PS, but I would not expect results any better than setting your enlarger/filter etc to an "optimum" in the darkroom and then just running off prints without paying attention to the needs of each individual negative.

[scott_eaton]

Unless I'm shooting in RAW mode, my Canon 10D is set for maximum sharpness, and even then I sometimes add some USM in Photoshop. By nature of their filtering to reduce aliasing and other problems, default dSLR capture tends to be soft by design.

 

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the D200 and D2X highly dependant on post capture sharpening to get the most from them?

[SCL]

Yes you can set up the parameters in the camera...but what you get will not be optimized for every photo. The honest answer is to keep shooting RAW, learn batch processing techniques, and develop a workflow which works for you. It is sort of like the photo lab you used to use for film has now outsourced their job to you as a digital user. You get more control, but you do all the work.

[doug bowles]

I prefer to do things exactly opposite of Scott - I regularly use a Sony DSC-F717, and I do not use in-camera sharpening at all. I'm thinking that every camera manufacturer uses a different software algorithm for sharpening, and so does Photoshop, Corel, all the way on down the line. Some algorithms no doubt do a better job then others - I don't ever recall seeing a study on it. The advice to do a series of trial shots using in-camera sharpening at different levels, and then compare it to the results you get in Photoshop is good advice. Ultimately I believe that's the only way you'll be able to convince yourself which way is the better path. FWIW, I use a program called Neat Image, which allows a broad range of sharpening and noise reduction control (WAY more than you would get with Photoshop).

[scott_eaton]

I prefer not to use Sony.