Discussion in 'Beyond the Basics' started by spiralout, Dec 27, 2004.
Is there an advantage of using in-camera sharpening or saturation over doing it in Photoshop?
Time. That's all I can think of. I'd much rather have the raw image I can try different amounts on. One setting does not fit all images.
I second the deranged madman ^^^^
Actually doing the saturation and sharpening in Photoshop is much more acurate than in camera. You also need to remember that some cameras do these steps before compression so it is easier to get "artifacting" on your final image. For best results turn off your sharpening and saturations settings or at least set them to normal
I agree with canon fan, I never use my in camera sharping or saturation!
I love using photoshop elements for that kind of thing.
What if you have 400 photos to go through?
I'm sorry, but i don't understand your question.
I have over 2000 photos! I just pick my favortie ones and edit those and then delete the rest. ]
Still not done sorting out all those pix I got! :LOL:
Sometimes it's just alot of work
Bummer, but it's true :cry:
So what is the feeling towards in-camera noise reduction?
My point was, I shoot events where I often take 400 photos over an 8-10 hour period, my current keeper rate being around 150. That's my current %. Going through that many photos is quite a chore... I'm working on and striving to get my photos as sharp and perfect as possible "out of the camera" with as little editing as possible. Thoeretically, if they were all perfect, I could automate the resizing and being done, just leaving things like cropping and stuff.
That was just a thought, playing devil's advocate here.
LOL, I just noticed Ferny's signature...
I shoot raw and don't do anything in camera except compose. It all depends on if you have the tools and want to spend the time on each image afterwards. For me, it's worth it.
A lot of software lets you batch edit, also.
Separate names with a comma.