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

[shadowlands]

I only sharpen a little...

 

[Jeff15]

Very nice images........

 

[Derrel]

I have found that for the first round of post capture sharpening I get better results by doing it in two passes of half strength, rather than one pass at full bore. For example if I want to apply 80% sharpening at three tenths of one pixel radius with a threshold of five, I would cut the percentage in half and do 40 once and then 40 again. I think this leads to a better result.

 

[petrochemist]

I seem to remember hearing some cameras apply sharpening before saving RAW data! I ftrue the manufacturers certainly believed sharpening was always required...

 

[photoflyer]

I sometimes sharpen the subject of the image leaving the background as is. I find this results in a more pleasant bokeh.

Does anyone know how most sharpening algorithms work.

 

[jcdeboever]

Again, fujifilm files dont take kindly to sharpening. Nikon can handle it. I don't know why but it is real to these eyes.

 

[SquarePeg]

I always sharpen my Fuji files a tiny bit unless I’m using a preset then. I’ve found that with raw conversions I need to sharpen much more than I do with jpegs so I’m assuming that jpegs have been sharpened during the in camera processing.

like Photoflyer I use selective sharpening on the main subject more often than sharpening the whole photo.

 

[Solarflare]

Well, how much I sharpen depends upon the lens I'm using.

Very nice images........

Err ... in regards to image quality ? I'm not impressed.

 

[Michael Smith 12]

I end up sharpening most of my pictures in post to make my final output better. Just be careful if you are planning to print big, because you will have to smoothen the lines after sharpening.

 

[JoeW]

First, I recall reading that if you shoot in RAW, it's going to require in sharpening. I wish I could remember the explanation for why this is so. My RAW files are NEF and I convert usually in Affinity Photo. So I don't believe my software automatically sharpens in RAW. But I absolutely notice a difference when I sharpen (or don't) with my RAW conversion.

Second, I think people are assuming that if your focus is good, your lens is calibrated, and your lens is sharp, your digital image will therefore be sharp. Not so. That body and lens and focus only creates a mass of digital data. Which your photo program then says "okay shooter, here it is--do with this what you will!"

I know that the literature I've seen has typically said to hold off sharpening until the end of your edits so it doesn't create "artifacts" in your image.

As to the questions about "how much to sharpen"--I think that's a function of so many variables (the look you're going for, the software you're using, if you shot RAW or jpeg) that it's impossible to say across the board for all or most photos and all or most programs.

 

[Overread]

If you see sharp RAW shots then its getting some sharpening somewhere along the lines. This "capture sharpening" (often the default settings for the raw processor) I do keep enabled. Even though its sharpening and even though sharpening is a destructive editing process (it removes data). It provides a shot where you can see what is and isn't sharp and work with your photo in a practical sense. Basically yes its degrading data, but that is worth the sacrifice to be able to judge sharp from soft shots and also edit the photo and prep it.

Otherwise yes sharpening comes last as its destructive. In addition its best to apply sharpening last because it will vary depending on your output. Eg if you're resizing for the internet you'd sharpen after resizing because you've just thrown outa huge amount of data to get the photo small enough to be practical online.

 

[shadowlands]

Very nice images........

Thanks!!!

 

[adamhiram]

This has been a very enlightening thread - so many different approaches to something that seems to get glossed over in most Lightroom tutorials. I typically don't touch the default sharpening settings in Lightroom unless it is obvious that it is needed, and will even slightly decrease clarity in some of my portraits for a softer look. When an image does need sharpening, I almost always do so with masking between 60-80 to ensure only edges get sharpened. I commonly use noise reduction in conjunction with sharpening to avoid observable artifacts, while being very careful not to overdo it. However I find that once I've sharpened an image to the point where I start seeing those artifacts, the better solution is usually to back off on sharpening rather than hide it with noise reduction.
I found this tutorial from f64 academy (linked from Fstoppers) from about 2 years ago to be very helpful.

 

[Derrel]

Bruce Fraser released a book about sharpening 15-17 years ago and the most salient points were condensed into a web article that taught me most of what I know about sharpening. In the early days of digital photography most sharpening was typically done in Photoshop, since that was just about the most common application software to deal with raw files. Today however we have many more choices and sharpening has been reduced to a simple one or two button click operation where the user does not enter his own specific values for percentage and radius, but as in the example of Lightroom we enter high-medium- low ,print or web, and the application takes care of the details. I'm not sure that this is actually a better solution in terms of making people understand what is actually going on.

 

[Grandpa Ron]

I suppose in retrospect, I should have realized that sharpness is a matter of opinion.

If it needs it, do it. If you like it, do not do it.

Since my camera does have a sharpness setting it believe I will start there.

Thanks everyone for the info.