sharper photos

[digitalkym]

I use the Nikon D80. I feel my photos are sharp. Then I look at other photographer's sight and some of the photos are absolutely crystal clear and sharp. Is this the lens or the camera. kym:er:

 

[Big Mike]

Is this the lens or the camera

Did you ever consider that it could be the photographer?

It's likely a combination of things. A good lens, good technique and good processing etc.

 

[digitalkym]

yes, I was trying to keep my post simple. I've used the tripod and tried different things. I'm always following other photographers and I lost track of this one, but her pics are unusually clear. My lenses are also VR. www.dkpphotography.blogspot.com/

 

[Big Mike]

Make sure that you turn of the VR when using a tripod.

It's often the case, that when someone asks how another photographer is getting such sharp photos, that they are looking at photos with a fairly shallow DOF. The blurry backgrounds tend to make the subject look exceptionally sharp. To get a very shallow DOF, you typically need 'fast' lenses (large max aperture)...so your average 'kit' lens just isn't going to cut it.

 

[KmH]

If I ever get it done, I'm writting a blog entry right now that addresses how to get tack sharp images.

• Good tripod with lens IS/VR disabled
• remote release or self timer
• mirror lockup
• know your lenses sweet spot
• quality glass
• low ISO
• good PP sharpening techniques

 

[icassell]

If you are shooting in RAW, don't forget that you no longer have in-camera sharpening. This must be corrected in PP.

 

[itznfb]

^ only if it's needed. technically you shouldn't need any sharpening straight out of RAW.


most dslrs also have shutter delay. which will wait 1 sec or another specified interval between the time you hit the trigger and the shutter actuates. obviously not needed if you're using a remote.

 

[icassell]

^ only if it's needed. technically you shouldn't need any sharpening straight out of RAW.
.

I'm not sure I agree with you (and would be interested in input from others). In-camera JPEG has sharpening filters built into the algorithm. I have yet to see an in-camera RAW image that doesn't need some degree of sharpening.

 

[KmH]

I agree, because of the AA filter alone.

 

[icassell]

I agree, because of the AA filter alone.

What's the AA filter? Anti-aliasing? Isn't that done in firmware?

 

[Overread]

One additional tip is that when you resize an image for the internet (say down to 800pixels on the longest side) you will induce a loss of sharpness just by the resizing method - this is very clear if you upload to places like photobucket which autoresize images which rae too large, but has no/poor sharpening so you get a noticably softer image.
For my own work I sharpen in 3 stages - sharpen the fullsized image - resize to 2000pixels on the longest side and sharpen again and then finally resize to 1000pixels (or to smaller if I so desire) and sharpen again.
The amount I sharpen by is dependant on how much is needed each time, I don't stick to fixed values (though typically the first 2 are similar and quite high whilst the 3rd is only a little bit).

I also sharpen with the Unsharpen Mask (yah great name for a sharpening tool) in photoshop elements with the following settings;
Amount - dependant on image
Radius 0.8
Threashold 4

^ only if it's needed. technically you shouldn't need any sharpening straight out of RAW.
.

I'm not sure I agree with you (and would be interested in input from others). In-camera JPEG has sharpening filters built into the algorithm. I have yet to see an in-camera RAW image that doesn't need some degree of sharpening.

I sharpen images as and when needed - that said pretty much all my RAWs go through sharpening, even the tacksharp macros taken on tripod (mirror lockup and all) benefit from some sharpening to the end image.

 

[MrLogic]

I also sharpen with the Unsharpen Mask (yah great name for a sharpening tool) in photoshop elements with the following settings;

It's much easier to get good results with Nik Sharpener Pro, IMO.

 

[musicaleCA]

I agree, because of the AA filter alone.

What's the AA filter? Anti-aliasing? Isn't that done in firmware?

No. There's a filter in front of the sensor that blurs the image to prevent aliasing caused by the grid layout of the photosites. It then needs to be corrected with sharpening. It's important to note that that is all sharpening is intended to do, and all it can do really: remove the blurring caused by that filter. It can't fix any issues like shake, or the focus being off, or what-have-you. Also, different cameras apply differing amounts of blur through that filter, require different amounts of sharpening. I usually have to bump it up to 45 or so.

Whatever you do though, sharpen last, sharpen last, sharpen last. Local and global contrast adjustments, exposure adjustments, colour adjustments; they can all increase the apparent sharpness of the subject. If you sharpened first you run the risk of over-sharpening.

 

[Garbz]

That's not the only issue. Look at your sensor the typical layout of the photosites is:

RGBGRGBGRGBG
GRGBGRGBGRGB
BGRGBGRGBGRG

etc. Thus your 10mpx image is not a record of 10million actual fulll colour pixels, but an interpolation of 10million grey pixels representing red green and blue. This interpolation ofcourse means the image isn't perfectly sharp.

 

[itznfb]

^ only if it's needed. technically you shouldn't need any sharpening straight out of RAW.
.

I'm not sure I agree with you (and would be interested in input from others). In-camera JPEG has sharpening filters built into the algorithm. I have yet to see an in-camera RAW image that doesn't need some degree of sharpening.

i'll post an example and maybe we're just looking at things a different way.... this picture below is just a raw dump opened with PS, made a border resized and saved as. in my opinion this photo will not benefit from any level of sharpening.

do you disagree? or are we not talking on the same level?

example: