Should digital photos need to be "sharpened" in post process?

Grandpa Ron

Been spending a lot of time on here!
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
725
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
I am not trying to stir up a hornets nest but at a recent photo club meeting, one of the member was showing pictures from his trip out west. In the ensuing conversations about post processing, an off-hand the comment was made, that digital photos almost always need to be sharpened in post process.

I have noticed a lack of sharpness in some of my photos but I attributed it the auto focus selecting the wrong subject and/or the aperture priority always seems to select the smallest f values, with the least amount of depth of field.

I do not know if it makes a difference in sharpness, but most of the camera club folks prefer to work in the JPG format rather than RAW.

I was curious if there was some merit to this off-hand comment?
 
digital photos almost always need to be sharpened in post process.

I'd say it's the opposite. With a good lens and light, the in focus area can be to sharp. In post I do apply a small amount of sharpening but then use a mask to limit it, to clean up the edges.
 
.. digital photos almost always need to be sharpened in post process.
I think a small amount of sharpening helps most shots. I usually sharpen the very last thing, after everything else is done.
 
It depends on a host of factors.
If high end lenses on a camera engineered for those lenses then I would say they have a focus calibration issue.
In my experience it can be some other factors as well, but in almost all cases I have seen, no.

The comment may have been sincere, but ill-informed.
 
I never sharpen in my Fujifilm X series cameras. The only time I think about it is if I missed focus and it doesn't help to sharpen a missed focus image. I shoot in raw and convert the image to jpeg in camera most of the time. I almost always de sharpen by -2 .

Other times, like a soccer game where I have 100 or more images, I shoot in raw and download into computer for batch edit and export jpegs.

Your going to get a lot of people that just shoot jpeg, to each their own. My experience is that the raw file is much easier to edit because there is a a lot more information to work with. I never liked sharpening with Fujifilm, looks weird to me. Nikon seems to take it on better but I don't do it with them either. I hate editing.

Personally, I like to get it right in the camera (raw) and tweak if needed in camera, and convert to jpeg in camera. Then I am not sitting in front of a computer for hours at a time. The only time I don't do this is when I am taking a lot of images at one time, like a kids soccer game.

One of my favorite things about Fujifilm X series cameras, in camera raw conversions. Most X series users don't do what I do, most shoot in raw + jpeg and edit on computer. A lot just shoot jpeg, I don't get it but to each his own.
 
Last edited:
Is this something to do with the size of the pixels now on the latest sensors versus the 'circle of confusion'?
 
Typically you need sharpening added post capture, to counteract the softening effect of the anti-aliasing filter array that most digital cameras use. And then you need to sharpen for end-use use, either web display or for printing. So yes, almost all digital images need some degree of sharpening if they were shot in raw or with sharpening set to off. If however you shoot in jpeg mode and have in- camera sharpening set to medium to high then typically you will not have to sharpen in post-processing, but sharpening has already been applied in-camera.
 
I don't remember where I saw it but I recall something about all digital images "requiring" some sharpening.

I was exposed to the unsharp mask when I took my first digital photography class and I always add some sharpening to the shots that I choose to keep.
 
I don't see why if you have a decent lens. I see a good bit 'out there' of what to me looks oversharpened. I agree it's better to shoot Raw if/when there's a need to edit, although I don't usually do much post processing.

If anything I may need to sharpen a scan of a print from film because the scanned copy may not be as sharp as the original.
 
A few thoughts:

1) If you shoot in RAW mode have a look at the default editing settings and you'll notice that, by default, the RAW processor is sharpening your photos every time. Try turning it off.
Once you pick your jaw up you realise that, yes, your photos DO need sharpening every single time. As noted above one part of this is the AA filter, which is why some camera manufacturers made cameras without the filter for even more sharpness (of course you're then open to more chances of aberrations appearing as a result of how digital sensors work).

2) When you resize a photo to display on the web or in print or anywhere you have to either throw data away (resizing smaller) or add data (enlarging). Both those process will often require sharpening (sometimes not much) in order to overcome the softening from the adjustment to the data. Some resizing software will apply a basic amount of sharpening as part of its resizing code, though even then you might well need a little more on top.
another common editing step that reduces sharpness is noise removal.

3) Sharpening isn't evil and is only refining what you've already captured. A soft shot can't be made sharp through editing with the sharpening tools. You can improve things, but never to perfection so a sharp, correct in camera, shot is always good.

4) Oversharpening is a risk and can happen; its a valid concern but one to simply temper the sharpening values rather than throw the whole concept out the window.
 
While we are on the subject of sharpening how do folks on this forum judge what is sharp and what is over sharpened?

Is it just a matter of experience with post processing and judging the correct level by eye or does anyone apply a "formula" that works for them?
 
I always do. Always.
 
The purists would say no but hey every little helps...............;)
 
While we are on the subject of sharpening how do folks on this forum judge what is sharp and what is over sharpened?

Is it just a matter of experience with post processing and judging the correct level by eye or does anyone apply a "formula" that works for them?

For me its a "by eye" thing. Though you can spot oversharpening mostly because you start to get halos and odd artifacts around the oversharpened areas. Best thing is to oversharpen something and see how it looks and then dial it back steadily to get an idea how it looks through the various stages. Once you've had a look at it that way you know what to look for when doing the next sharpening
 
The purists would say no but hey every little helps...............;)

In my experience many of the "purists" who don't believe in any editing tend to be those who sent their negatives to the camera shop to be developed. They were just unaware that in the developing process their shots were edited by the staff to basic levels of performance
 

Most reactions

Back
Top