Why use in-camera sharpening/saturation?

spiralout · Dec 27, 2004

Is there an advantage of using in-camera sharpening or saturation over doing it in Photoshop?

markc · Dec 27, 2004

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.

DocFrankenstein · Dec 28, 2004

I second the deranged madman ^^^^

D)

Canon Fan · Dec 28, 2004

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 :wink:

cmptrdewd · Dec 28, 2004

Canon Fan said:
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.

Bokeh · Dec 28, 2004

cmptrdewd said:
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?

cmptrdewd · Dec 28, 2004

Bokeh said:
cmptrdewd said:

I agree with canon fan, I never use my in camera sharping or saturation!
I love using photoshop elements for that kind of thing.

Click to expand...

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:

Canon Fan · Dec 28, 2004

Bokeh said:
What if you have 400 photos to go through?

Sometimes it's just alot of work :lol:

Bummer, but it's true :cry:

ferny · Dec 28, 2004

So what is the feeling towards in-camera noise reduction?

Bokeh · Dec 28, 2004

cmptrdewd said:
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:

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...

markc · Dec 28, 2004

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.

markc · Dec 28, 2004

A lot of software lets you batch edit, also.

Bokeh · Dec 28, 2004

markc said:
A lot of software lets you batch edit, also.

I have photoshop 8, but i'd rather no go through and edit 400 images, or even 150. And I'm not sure how you could "batch" set something like white balance, sharpening etc. because it is different for every photo.

markc · Dec 28, 2004

True, but I think you have a better chance of getting better results, because you can do them in groups of similar images. Even if you don't, you still have the raw image to go back to if you ever want to spend the time on it. Not saying people should do it this way. The time/convenience factor can be a very important one. This is just the reason I do it. It all depends on if you think the result is worth the effort. There is a point of diminishing return for everything we do. Everyone will have their own conclusion to come to as to where it's best to stop.

Bokeh · Dec 29, 2004

markc said:
True, but I think you have a better chance of getting better results, because you can do them in groups of similar images. Even if you don't, you still have the raw image to go back to if you ever want to spend the time on it. Not saying people should do it this way. The time/convenience factor can be a very important one. This is just the reason I do it. It all depends on if you think the result is worth the effort. There is a point of diminishing return for everything we do. Everyone will have their own conclusion to come to as to where it's best to stop.

Well, maybe the approach depends onthe event you're shooting. If you're going to be covering an event like a tournament that will take 8+ hours, do everything you can to minimize post-processing. If you're shooting for an hour, shoot raw with no in-camera optimzations.