Grapes # 2

Here's a shot from this morning at Holy-Field Vineyard. Of interest to me is what you think of the sharpness of this image (particularly mid frame). I saw a tip on enhancing sharpness in the 5D somewhere and went back to my manual (I know Tim ... read it twice!!). Based on that tip I set my "Picture Style" to "landscape" and added one level of sharpness to that style.

Long story short, the sharpness out of camera has really impressed me over what I had been getting, even handheld. I used a little unsharp mask to this shot but no other sharpening for web display.

5D, 100 macro, 0.4 @ f/11, ISO 200, MF, polarizer

Wayne,

I think the sharpness is just right. It has a real 3D look. And nice color and comp, to boot. By the way, why ISO 200? I would think that highlight burn would be more likely away from the base ISO. And shadow detail and color is better at base ISO, too. Not that I see those issues here, just a curiosity.

To open a discussion, I thought that in-camera sharpening did not affect the RAW image. In fact, my impression is that ISO, aperture and shutter speed are the only truly critical settings when shooting RAW. So does changing the in camera sharpness change the "default" sharpness setting in your RAW converter yet still give you the chance to increase or decrease it? I am curious because I always leave my sharpening at none in my D200, and I do my "capture sharpening" in ACR.

looks great Wayne, the sharpness appears fine to me

Thanks Dominic & Rob. I'm not a techie Dominic so I can't answer your question as it relates to sharpening a raw image in camera. All I can tell you is that I made the setting changes before going to CO a couple of weeks ago and on one hike I left the tripod in the car. I took some handheld shots of Bierstadt Lake with my 24-70L (no IS) and the sharpness in the foreground trees took me by surprise.

I chose ISO 200 was because it was unusually windy yesterday morning. Today was a different story, perfectly calm.

I guess what this means is that I need to do some testing. I'll have to find a nice challenging scene and shoot it both ways and compare. I may be totally off base here and may have actually focused correctly for a change!

Hi Wayne,
Another fine bunch of grapes!

The overall sharpness looks real good. The sharpness at mid frame is not as noticeable to me I believe due to the darker tones of that area. Since sharpness is a distinguishing between the lighter and darker tones of an image it would make sense that the mid frame is just as sharp, just not as noticeable.

As far as camera settings, (in camera sharpening), I have read a few articles on the subject and thought I would pass one along. This one seems to make as much sense to me as anything. Keep in mind I read these things and no idea if the person writing it knows what they are talking about, but I try to use others opinions as a starting point to base my own on.

From fotohacker.com, (quote)
"The science of photography is pretty fluid and the tools are not always calibrated exactly to our liking. Sharpening is almost always applied in-camera. A certain amount is dialed in by the manufacturer in-camera and is performed by the filter overtop of the image sensor. However, camera makers need to find a balance. Too much sharpening can cause a moire effect with certain subject matter. Too little sharpening will cause customers to complain about soft images."

"That’s why most digital cameras have a sharpening control, to allow you to manipulate the amount of sharpening that is applied to the image. Usually the amounts that can be applied are harmless levels of sharpening, and won’t do any damage to the image. Still, the process of software sharpening In-Camera does alter the image in a way that cannot be repaired or altered unless you shoot RAW."

"Going beyond that is sharpening done in post-processing. Technically this is the same process, but it’s performed a step later, with the difference being that it gives you a little more control over how the image will end up looking."

"So should you use sharpening? Yes. The in-camera sharpening is likely set to a level that won’t harm your picture even if you crank it up and max it out. The post-processing sharpening in most software needs to be used with a bit more care, since too much sharpening can drop vital information and render a picture useless, but it’s also a handy tool when used conservatively."

Well, I guess that's my 2 cents worth and I even had to borrow that from someone else! So take it for what it's worth.
It's nice to have a place where opinions are always welcomed.
Thanks for sharing Wayne.

Brad

Wayne for 1 I like the photo. If you don't already have one there it needs to be on the wall of the winery, blown up about twice life size.

2. It's been my understanding that RAW images aren't adjusted by changing any of the in-camera settings but like you it's also been my observation that that isn't always born out by real life experiences. I would say do it like I have, adjust it where you like it and forget it.

Beautiful grapes, Wayne - I love the subdued colors and they look fine as far as sharpness goes. But that might not hold true on the other 6 monitors at my disposal!

If RAW images were sharpened based on an in-camera setting, then the value of the RAW file would be minimal. Everything I've read says that in-camera sharpness ends up as a parameter in the RAW file (for some cameras). But I've never actually changed the setting!

It sounds like there is an opportunity for a practical learning experience for me here. I'm going to do some testing on something with a lot of edge contrast and shoot some at each in camera sharpness setting. I'll compare the files in ACR and in CS2 to see what I get at each stage. Should be able to support or refute this pretty easy.

Thanks for all your input.

Very nice shot, Wayne, the grapes look like you could pick them and eat them right off the screen. I guess that means it is pretty realistic and sharp.