Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

About post processing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Do you post process your images?
I just resize and sharpen.
2%
 2%  [ 1 ]
Yes, but only a few basic settings, curves, levels, sharpening++
38%
 38%  [ 15 ]
I sometimes do alot of PP
30%
 30%  [ 12 ]
I shoot RAW and just resize and develop without adjustments
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
No, I shoot jpg and just resize them for web
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
I try to do minimum of PP on this forum to present a honest description of lens abilities og character
20%
 20%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 39



PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Look, in that EOS, there is NO zero sharpening, OK? You must choose a value. It defaults to 3, but it has two values lesser than that and four above it. Is 3 zero sharpness? No. It's just the default value that Canon has chosen, which is in fact a quite muddy value. At least with my XS it is. So I choose not to use it. And I don't subscribe to your theory that somehow this sharpness level will work more on one image than another. That's the equivalent to choosing a rubber yardstick to make your measurements, which renders pointless any result. Your conjecture is meaningless unless you can back it up with hard evidence.


PostPosted: Fri May 01, 2015 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Look, in that EOS, there is NO zero sharpening, OK? You must choose a value. It defaults to 3, but it has two values lesser than that and four above it. Is 3 zero sharpness? No. It's just the default value that Canon has chosen, which is in fact a quite muddy value. At least with my XS it is. So I choose not to use it. And I don't subscribe to your theory that somehow this sharpness level will work more on one image than another. That's the equivalent to choosing a rubber yardstick to make your measurements, which renders pointless any result. Your conjecture is meaningless unless you can back it up with hard evidence.


Wow, on the web there is plenty of "hard evidence" -- explanations of how sharpening works -- not my "conjecture." Perhaps they can explain better so you can understand. I don't enjoy abuse when trying to help somebody -- I'm done with this.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Look, in that EOS, there is NO zero sharpening, OK? You must choose a value. It defaults to 3, but it has two values lesser than that and four above it. Is 3 zero sharpness? No. It's just the default value that Canon has chosen, which is in fact a quite muddy value. At least with my XS it is. So I choose not to use it. And I don't subscribe to your theory that somehow this sharpness level will work more on one image than another. That's the equivalent to choosing a rubber yardstick to make your measurements, which renders pointless any result. Your conjecture is meaningless unless you can back it up with hard evidence.


Sharpening is always a positive value -- I would say on the XS a sharpening value of "1" would equate to "no sharpening", which is the goal. However, in-camera sharpening is not utilized when using raw image and conversion software.

It makes sense to me that feeding the sharpen algorithm different data will result in different output, i.e., the sharpness routines can possibly work better on one test image than another.

Would you, as you say, "subscribe" to the notion that the sharpened images get more similar as more sharpening is used. i.e. any sharpening makes the lens differences less apparent? That would make lens comparison more difficult, yes? Another reason not to sharpen images use to compare lens' sharpness...

Another factor is computer sharpening algorithms are typical better than in-camera algorithm, simple because more code can be fit on a computer, and, a computer has much more computing power, thus the algorithm can be more complex/accurate/featured, etc.. I would re-develop any images made using both in-camera and computer sharpening, to use only the computer algorithms, to get best results...


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 2:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Look, in that EOS, there is NO zero sharpening, OK? You must choose a value. It defaults to 3, but it has two values lesser than that and four above it. Is 3 zero sharpness? No. It's just the default value that Canon has chosen, which is in fact a quite muddy value. At least with my XS it is. So I choose not to use it. And I don't subscribe to your theory that somehow this sharpness level will work more on one image than another. That's the equivalent to choosing a rubber yardstick to make your measurements, which renders pointless any result. Your conjecture is meaningless unless you can back it up with hard evidence.


Sharpening is always a positive value -- I would say on the XS a sharpening value of "1" would equate to "no sharpening", which is the goal. However, in-camera sharpening is not utilized when using raw image and conversion software.


This is not true. Canon's DPP brings the camera's sharpness setting into its environment. But, just like the camera, this setting can be changed -- with the same results. And the value of "1" is not sharpening at all, it is the opposite. It blurs the image.

To quote Adobe on sharpening: "Sharpening enhances the definition of edges in an image." Really, that's all sharpening does. It enhances the edges in an image. It does not somehow draw forth dormant resolution that hasn't been expressed.

Quote:
It makes sense to me that feeding the sharpen algorithm different data will result in different output, i.e., the sharpness routines can possibly work better on one test image than another.


This may be the case if one of the images has no edges to enhance. Please recall the above definition. But this whole business of comparing different images is a false dichotomy because that's not what I'm doing. When I'm doing comparisons, I'm not comparing different images -- or at least different scenes. I'm' comparing the same identical scene with different lenses. So your -- I dunno -- thought experiment? -- it doesn't apply to what I'm doing. By comparing the same scene with different lenses, I make sure that everything, including the sharpness setting, is kept the same so that the only differences are due to the lenses being used.

Quote:
Would you, as you say, "subscribe" to the notion that the sharpened images get more similar as more sharpening is used. i.e. any sharpening makes the lens difference less apparent? That would make lens comparison more difficult, yes? Another reason not to sharpen images use to compare lens' sharpness...


It makes NO difference because I don't change the amount of sharpening when I'm doing lens comparisons. Let me fill you in on a little something I've noticed over the years about applying sharpness to images. If the image is already perfectly in focus, sharpening routines add nothing but noise. Even enhancing edge detail adds an insignificant amount of change -- except noise -- to an image. So if I've managed to achieve perfect focus with my test lenses, no sharpening -- beyond what the camera is set to -- is even necessary. And with my NEX, I don't even have a sharpening setting, so there's your zero sharpness right there.

Quote:

Another factor is computer sharpening algorithms are typical better than in-camera algorithm, simple because more code can be fit on a computer, and, a computer has much more computing power, thus the algorithm can be more complex/accurate/featured, etc.. I would re-develop any images made using both in-camera and computer sharpening, to use only the computer algorithms, to get best results...


But not if you're doing lens tests. Well, maybe when you are, but not when I am. I do NOT add any sharpening routines AT ALL to the images of my lens tests -- beyond where the camera was set, which is always 5 out of 7, in the case of my EOS XS. Have I made my point yet? Incidentally, I arrived at the "5" figure after doing many comparisons of images, studying them for artifacts, stair-steps, and other annoyances. "5" is the limit. Anything greater than "5" and artifacts appear. So I've never seen anything wrong with getting the most out of that camera's sensor, given that its anti-aliasing filter probably removed most of the sharpness to begin with. Oh, and when I mentioned above a perfectly focused image not benefiting from any further sharpening, I wasn't talking about in-camera sharpening. I was talking about my computer software's sharpening. Even it doesn't really make much of a difference -- except for adding noise.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
Look, in that EOS, there is NO zero sharpening, OK? You must choose a value. It defaults to 3, but it has two values lesser than that and four above it. Is 3 zero sharpness? No. It's just the default value that Canon has chosen, which is in fact a quite muddy value. At least with my XS it is. So I choose not to use it. And I don't subscribe to your theory that somehow this sharpness level will work more on one image than another. That's the equivalent to choosing a rubber yardstick to make your measurements, which renders pointless any result. Your conjecture is meaningless unless you can back it up with hard evidence.


Sharpening is always a positive value -- I would say on the XS a sharpening value of "1" would equate to "no sharpening", which is the goal. However, in-camera sharpening is not utilized when using raw image and conversion software.


This is not true. Canon's DPP brings the camera's sharpness setting into its environment. But, just like the camera, this setting can be changed -- with the same results. And the value of "1" is not sharpening at all, it is the opposite. It blurs the image.

To quote Adobe on sharpening: "Sharpening enhances the definition of edges in an image." Really, that's all sharpening does. It enhances the edges in an image. It does not somehow draw forth dormant resolution that hasn't been expressed.


DPP brings in the camera's sharpness setting, yes, but the sharpness scale in my version of DPP goes from 0 to 10 -- yours does not?! Sharpmess is always a positive value.

Would Adobe say that identical-scene/from different lenses sharpened comparison images are more similar than the unsharpened images? Comparing lens sharpmess would be easier using unsharpened images, yes?


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
It makes sense to me that feeding the sharpen algorithm different data will result in different output, i.e., the sharpness routines can possibly work better on one test image than another.


This may be the case if one of the images has no edges to enhance. Please recall the above definition. But this whole business of comparing different images is a false dichotomy because that's not what I'm doing. When I'm doing comparisons, I'm not comparing different images -- or at least different scenes. I'm' comparing the same identical scene with different lenses. So your -- I dunno -- thought experiment? -- it doesn't apply to what I'm doing. By comparing the same scene with different lenses, I make sure that everything, including the sharpness setting, is kept the same so that the only differences are due to the lenses being used.


Of course I was speaking of comparing identical scene with different lenses...


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
Would you, as you say, "subscribe" to the notion that the sharpened images get more similar as more sharpening is used. i.e. any sharpening makes the lens difference less apparent? That would make lens comparison more difficult, yes? Another reason not to sharpen images use to compare lens' sharpness...


It makes NO difference because I don't change the amount of sharpening when I'm doing lens comparisons. Let me fill you in on a little something I've noticed over the years about applying sharpness to images. If the image is already perfectly in focus, sharpening routines add nothing but noise. Even enhancing edge detail adds an insignificant amount of change -- except noise -- to an image. So if I've managed to achieve perfect focus with my test lenses, no sharpening -- beyond what the camera is set to -- is even necessary. And with my NEX, I don't even have a sharpening setting, so there's your zero sharpness right there.


I don't understand the part about "with my test lenses, no sharpening -- beyond what the camera is set to" -- the part about "what the camera is set to" implies to me there is sharpening in the camera of test lens images, that you keep the same sharpness setting value DPP pulls in instead of changing that to 0 in DPP before saving jpg.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm tired of this. It reminds me of beating my head against a wall. You go do what you think you should do and I'll go ahead and do what I think is valid. I will communicate no further on this matter.


PostPosted: Sat May 02, 2015 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I'm tired of this. It reminds me of beating my head against a wall. You go do what you think you should do and I'll go ahead and do what I think is valid. I will communicate no further on this matter.


Having beat your head against a wall before explains a lot. Laughing (ducking & running; sorry everybody, I could not resist.)

Cambridge in Colour A Learning Community for Photographers: GUIDE TO IMAGE SHARPENING


PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2023 5:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have no answer

Back in the day in the 60s and 70s, we always post processed in the darkroom, changing the contrast burning and dodging modifying various areas cropping etc etc. We enhanced the images using the tools at our disposal which is all post processing is.

Some prints were heavily post processed in the darkroom using several techniques over many hours, some required less work.

Post processing is nothing new, we often do far less post processing now on digital images than we routinely did in the darkroom back in the day. Casual observers used to think we photographers just knocked out a bunch of prints from the negatives to arrive at wonderful masterpieces, nothing could be further from the truth.

Photographers often had a specialist darkroom printer who worked with them, who was an artist in the darkroom, and they worked as partners to produce exceptional work.

Having said that, I like to do minimal post processing on images if I can but I might do extremely extensive post processing with some images. It depends entirely on my concept for the image and what is needed to create exactly what I am looking for.

I create my images in my head and in my imagination, I try to make them real in the world, and then record them in camera if I can.

After that the real work might begin in post for a complex image.

Right now I am working on a project using around 60 source images the result should be a single image the size of a wall with different perspectives within it. I have been working on this over several days already. And I have no idea yet if it will be trash or treasure.

This is the nature of art, we push boundaries and we cannot push boundaries without taking risks.

The only correct answer to this question can be, it depends.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 16, 2023 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Welcome to the forum oldgearuser! Happy Dog

You are reviving a very old post, which of course is still 100% relevant today.

Personally, before digital I used to shoot slide film only; I had it developed for me, but other than asking them to pull or push the processing I never did any PP, nor printing.

In the world of digital photography, and with no intention of selling my images, I feel very comfortable doing the same really; I rarely shoot RAW, mostly JPEG with in-camera DRO and "daylight" white balance settings that I have found to work well for me. The final image may get a quick levels check in PP, or for some tricky images I may play with highlights & shadows and may compensate for the resulting shift in saturation, but that's it.

Even without any sharpening that gives me images that look fine and natural on a 1920x1920 pixel square monitor, which is my normal intended personal viewing environment and is somewhat "compatible" with the traditionally often used 30 micron COC criterion for 35mm film.

With slide film the idea was to get as much as possible "right" in the camera, esp. exposure; I use the same paradigm in my digital photography, minimising time required on PP (not a fan of computers other than for the final "slideshow").


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
oldgearuser wrote:
The only correct answer to this question can be, it depends.


Yeah, it depends. Most of my pics are good enough to just render a jpeg from the raw and be done with it. And then there´s the rare occasion of a fizzled but otherwise so precious image that I spend a lot of time to rescue what´s possible.

I always render from raw. Even the Olympus EM-1ii (allegedly, quite the machine in terms of processing power) delivers worse OOC jpegs than the one exported from the PP software.
After 3 years of use, I still haven´t found the setting where I could switch off noise reduction in the Sony A7ii. So that´s what I do with every single .arw file.
Nikon´s D610 is easy going in this regard as it can be turned off in the camera. Sharpening almost never. Shoot low ISO, switch off noise reduction, get a tack sharp image. Some sharpening tools can improve images where the focus is slightly off, but that´s a desperate measure.
Getting the dynamic range right is still better be done by a human than by the "Auto" setting in the camera. That sometimes needs a critical look and often to be switched off completely. And some images just want some more contrast and saturation for dramatic effect. Though I´m certainly not the Ken Rockwell type I sometimes enjoy to have it more popping.

Welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing your insight in darkroom work. Interesting indeed. (And I hope Vis and Cooltouch still are friends) Laugh 1


PostPosted: Wed Nov 29, 2023 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Noise reduction is performed before the camera write to the raw file. Apart from the noise reduction for long exposure, I don't think you can turn noise reduction off.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 30, 2024 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As above it depends.

If I'm trying to create photo 'art' then a lot of PP is sometimes required.
If trying to create a record of an event then near none.

An example.
This is an impossible image. The view is looking north and at my latitude the milky way never appears north of the house so this image could never occur.
To create tgis the milky way was photographed in a dark skies location in rural France. The house was taken at dusk in the UK
The two images were merged and the house was extensively relit in PP to make it appear 'plausible'.


On the other hand this image was taken from the back of the grandstand at Silverstone using a 1000mm mirror lens hence needed a small amount of sharpening and saturation and that was all.



PostPosted: Mon Jul 01, 2024 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vintage_Photographer wrote:
As above it depends.

If I'm trying to create photo 'art' then a lot of PP is sometimes required.
If trying to create a record of an event then near none.

An example.
This is an impossible image. The view is looking north and at my latitude the milky way never appears north of the house so this image could never occur.
To create tgis the milky way was photographed in a dark skies location in rural France. The house was taken at dusk in the UK
The two images were merged and the house was extensively relit in PP to make it appear 'plausible'.


That one gives me Atkinson Grimshaw vibes! Like 1 small
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2