 |
|
|
|
Next: Converting litho film to digital files
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:00 am
Post subject: Nikon D80 sharpness
Archived from groups: rec>photo>digital (more info?)
|
|
|
It's not always possible to save NEF images especially during long trips
where each GByte on the card is the last.  Some people are always using
JPG, for example I've seen than on the Ken's Rockwell web site.
I noticed that when I shoot large JPG files with the maximum available
quality the sharpness from my point of view is not enough, probably because
of the program using by this camera. If it "notices" faces it switches to
the portrait mode making the images softer. Sometimes I even can't explain
why the images are looking so soft regardless of the number of details that
I'm expecting to see on them.
To resolve this issue I made several tests and finally switched the camera
sharpness forever to +2. The images became a little bit larger, but not
dramatically, I think because of the details remaining in the files. That's
good, we can always destroy these details using computer. But what's the
downside of always keeping the camera sharpness +2?
I remember one thread in this NG a few month ago when somebody compared the
sharpness of the Canons and the Nikons in jpg mode. Nikons were usually
softer in the same environment making images under the same conditions. From
another side both RAW files were pretty close telling us that the final
sharpness of the images is nothing else but the JPG compression. Somebody
even recommended to correct the sharpness in Nikon to get similar JPG
images.
Does anybody has any good recommendations based on his own experience? Maybe
some statistics? Maybe there are some traps noticed when we switch the
sharpness to maximum? I'm not talking now about images where softness is
required, no, there are the number of the situations like these. But for
example if I want to shoot the image with the maximum details available and
the Auto mode is not able to give it to me...
So please give me any good advice.
Thanks,
Just D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:05 am
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I just re-thought my own question. Maybe it can be simplified to: "Is it
easy to get a soft image from the sharp one and backwards, to get a sharp
image form the soft one? I guess that the first way is easier than the
second one where the original JPG image received from the camera is not
having enough details because they have been lost during compression. Maybe
I'm wrong.
Just D. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 01, 2006
Posts: 525
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:35 am
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Apr 11, 3:05 am, "Just D" <n....RemoveThis@spam.please> wrote:
> I just re-thought my own question. Maybe it can be simplified to: "Is it
> easy to get a soft image from the sharp one and backwards, to get a sharp
> image form the soft one? I guess that the first way is easier than the
> second one where the original JPG image received from the camera is not
> having enough details because they have been lost during compression. Maybe
> I'm wrong.
>
> Just D.
Alot depends on lenses too, then 10mp Sony chip destroys lesser and
mediocre lenses. On the up side of that the images do sharpen well,
but use a small radius, a pixel or less. This will give you the best
images from your camera. Use this lens with one of the Nikon Micros
(accessibly priced good lens) and you will see what this sensor can
do. With a kit lens it is best to use unsharp mask or smart sharpen on
the image. As for jpeg compression the best way to look at that is
with files size on fine the jpeg size (on my D200) is 3-4 mb which is
not a heck of a lot of compression.
Tom >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 sharpness |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 27, 2006
Posts: 64
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:42 am
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Imported from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 06, 2007
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 00:00:00 -0700, "Just D" <no.TakeThisOut@spam.please> wrote:
>It's not always possible to save NEF images especially during long trips
>where each GByte on the card is the last. Some people are always using
>JPG, for example I've seen than on the Ken's Rockwell web site.
I know how you feel!
>
>I noticed that when I shoot large JPG files with the maximum available
>quality the sharpness from my point of view is not enough, probably because
>of the program using by this camera. If it "notices" faces it switches to
>the portrait mode making the images softer. Sometimes I even can't explain
>why the images are looking so soft regardless of the number of details that
>I'm expecting to see on them.
>
Whilst the D80 is known to have rather 'conservative' sharpening
algorithms, this may also be down to your technique and/or lenses.
>To resolve this issue I made several tests and finally switched the camera
>sharpness forever to +2. The images became a little bit larger, but not
>dramatically, I think because of the details remaining in the files. That's
>good, we can always destroy these details using computer. But what's the
>downside of always keeping the camera sharpness +2?
You may introduce objectionable artifacts in your images e.g. 'halo'
effects and you will also increase apparent noise esp. at high ISO
>
>I remember one thread in this NG a few month ago when somebody compared the
>sharpness of the Canons and the Nikons in jpg mode. Nikons were usually
>softer in the same environment making images under the same conditions. From
>another side both RAW files were pretty close telling us that the final
>sharpness of the images is nothing else but the JPG compression. Somebody
>even recommended to correct the sharpness in Nikon to get similar JPG
>images.
>
Yes quite true. Personally I leave the sharpness set at +1 and then
often apply some unsharp mask in Photoshop as well, but I often get
acceptable images straight out of the camera at this setting. Also,
good lenses make a big difference I find.
>Does anybody has any good recommendations based on his own experience? Maybe
>some statistics? Maybe there are some traps noticed when we switch the
>sharpness to maximum? I'm not talking now about images where softness is
>required, no, there are the number of the situations like these. But for
>example if I want to shoot the image with the maximum details available and
>the Auto mode is not able to give it to me...
You have not stated the lenses etc you are using, but my advice is
don't go above +1 on the in-camera sharpening.
If you have Photoshop - better results can be obtained using 'unsharp
mask' than in-camera sharpening will give you in most circumstances as
you have more control. e.g. to sharpen the hair in a portrait whilst
leaving the skin tones fairly soft, you can apply unsharp mask using a
high 'threshold' setting (only affects areas with large variation in
adjacent pixel tone e.g. in hair and other areas of fine detail).
>
>So please give me any good advice.
>
>Thanks,
>Just D.
> >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 sharpness |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 07, 2007
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Apr 11, 2007 5:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hi Westy!
Thanks you for your message.
>>But what's the downside of always keeping the camera sharpness +2?
> You may introduce objectionable artifacts in your images e.g. 'halo'
> effects and you will also increase apparent noise esp. at high ISO
> Personally I leave the sharpness set at +1 and then often apply some
> unsharp
Ok, in this case I'll need to make more field tests with 0/+1/+2 to compare
the results.
> mask in Photoshop as well, but I often get
I usually use Nikon Picture Project for the initial import/conversion right
after I just copied the images from the camera to the hard drive. NPP has
several simple but convenient features allowing me to rename the files using
the date/time, then it has "D-Lightning HS" which is very convenient for
contrast or/and underexposed shots, and finally "Sharpening" that I had to
use pretty often for JPG files before I changed this option. It also can
read and export NEF files that I use for more important shots to get a
lossless TIF file to work with it. And it's free, came from Nikon with the
camera!
> acceptable images straight out of the camera at this setting. Also,
> good lenses make a big difference I find.
That's true. It will be the next step with better lenses. I already have a
set for macro shooting, but I'm still having several much more important
things to do now to lose the money buying extra stuff. You asked me about
the lenses. I'm basically using 2 kit lenses 18-55 and 55-200. As Ken
Rockwell said he likes them more than some others, even more expensive ones.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm
> You have not stated the lenses etc you are using, but my advice is
> don't go above +1 on the in-camera sharpening.
Thanks, I will play with this setting again to get a better result. But I
guess you're right giving me this advice.
> If you have Photoshop - better results can be obtained using 'unsharp
> mask' than in-camera sharpening will give you in most circumstances as
> you have more control. e.g. to sharpen the hair in a portrait whilst
> leaving the skin tones fairly soft, you can apply unsharp mask using a
True. It's important to hide all skin defects showing the hairs at the same
time...)
> high 'threshold' setting (only affects areas with large variation in
> adjacent pixel tone e.g. in hair and other areas of fine detail).
Yes, that's good, you're right here.
Thanks,
Just D. >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 sharpness |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Mar 06, 2007
Posts: 13
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:34:49 -0700, "Just D" <no RemoveThis @spam.please> wrote:
>Hi Westy!
>
>Thanks you for your message.
>
>>>But what's the downside of always keeping the camera sharpness +2?
>> You may introduce objectionable artifacts in your images e.g. 'halo'
>> effects and you will also increase apparent noise esp. at high ISO
>
>> Personally I leave the sharpness set at +1 and then often apply some
>> unsharp
>
>Ok, in this case I'll need to make more field tests with 0/+1/+2 to compare
>the results.
>
>> mask in Photoshop as well, but I often get
>
>I usually use Nikon Picture Project for the initial import/conversion right
>after I just copied the images from the camera to the hard drive. NPP has
>several simple but convenient features allowing me to rename the files using
>the date/time, then it has "D-Lightning HS" which is very convenient for
>contrast or/and underexposed shots, and finally "Sharpening" that I had to
>use pretty often for JPG files before I changed this option. It also can
>read and export NEF files that I use for more important shots to get a
>lossless TIF file to work with it. And it's free, came from Nikon with the
>camera!
Ok I am aware of picture project but have not used it so can't comment
on it's capability. All I can say is that Photoshop's unsharp mask
tool is much more flexible than the in camera sharpening as you can
adjust the parameters seperately. But yes - it's expensive - and it
all takes time.
>
>> acceptable images straight out of the camera at this setting. Also,
>> good lenses make a big difference I find.
>
>That's true. It will be the next step with better lenses. I already have a
>set for macro shooting, but I'm still having several much more important
>things to do now to lose the money buying extra stuff. You asked me about
>the lenses. I'm basically using 2 kit lenses 18-55 and 55-200. As Ken
>Rockwell said he likes them more than some others, even more expensive ones.
>
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm
Ok - firstly - don't take what Ken Rockwell says as gospel. He is
controversial and contradictory to say the least. Get a second
opinion on everything he says.
Secondly, I can't understate how much difference good lenses can
make. I have used such lenses as the 18-55 and especially the 18-70
lens (came with my D70) and whilst they are respectible 'kit' lenses
have now traded up to better lenses as more cash became available. In
my opinion, lenses such as the 18-55 don't really do cameras such as
the D80 justice in most circumstances and end up being the limiting
factor - you end up trying to create sharpness 'artificially'. If you
go to your local camera shop and try a few higher quality lense you'll
probably see what I mean.
>
>> You have not stated the lenses etc you are using, but my advice is
>> don't go above +1 on the in-camera sharpening.
>
>Thanks, I will play with this setting again to get a better result. But I
>guess you're right giving me this advice.
Well it's just my take on the matter. There is no right or wrong at
the end of the day, but if you consistently use +2 - expect to see the
occasional odd effect creeping into some of your images.
>
>> If you have Photoshop - better results can be obtained using 'unsharp
>> mask' than in-camera sharpening will give you in most circumstances as
>> you have more control. e.g. to sharpen the hair in a portrait whilst
>> leaving the skin tones fairly soft, you can apply unsharp mask using a
>
>True. It's important to hide all skin defects showing the hairs at the same
>time...)
>
>> high 'threshold' setting (only affects areas with large variation in
>> adjacent pixel tone e.g. in hair and other areas of fine detail).
>
>Yes, that's good, you're right here.
>
>Thanks,
>Just D.
> >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 sharpness |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Dec 18, 2006
Posts: 9
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I'm curious - I have the 18 - 70 kit lens, which, as you say, is quite
respectible. I bought the 50 mm f/1.8 fixed focus lens which definitely
seems sharper - what lens(es) do you use to replace the 18-70mm lens?
Alan
"Westy" <whiteroseofyorkshire.DeleteThis@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fe0t13lrvbcs0qsc01ibeheki3mirvna0t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:34:49 -0700, "Just D" <no.DeleteThis@spam.please> wrote:
>
>>Hi Westy!
>>
>>Thanks you for your message.
>>
>>>>But what's the downside of always keeping the camera sharpness +2?
>>> You may introduce objectionable artifacts in your images e.g. 'halo'
>>> effects and you will also increase apparent noise esp. at high ISO
>>
>>> Personally I leave the sharpness set at +1 and then often apply some
>>> unsharp
>>
>>Ok, in this case I'll need to make more field tests with 0/+1/+2 to
>>compare
>>the results.
>>
>>> mask in Photoshop as well, but I often get
>>
>>I usually use Nikon Picture Project for the initial import/conversion
>>right
>>after I just copied the images from the camera to the hard drive. NPP has
>>several simple but convenient features allowing me to rename the files
>>using
>>the date/time, then it has "D-Lightning HS" which is very convenient for
>>contrast or/and underexposed shots, and finally "Sharpening" that I had to
>>use pretty often for JPG files before I changed this option. It also can
>>read and export NEF files that I use for more important shots to get a
>>lossless TIF file to work with it. And it's free, came from Nikon with the
>>camera!
>
> Ok I am aware of picture project but have not used it so can't comment
> on it's capability. All I can say is that Photoshop's unsharp mask
> tool is much more flexible than the in camera sharpening as you can
> adjust the parameters seperately. But yes - it's expensive - and it
> all takes time.
>
>>
>>> acceptable images straight out of the camera at this setting. Also,
>>> good lenses make a big difference I find.
>>
>>That's true. It will be the next step with better lenses. I already have a
>>set for macro shooting, but I'm still having several much more important
>>things to do now to lose the money buying extra stuff. You asked me about
>>the lenses. I'm basically using 2 kit lenses 18-55 and 55-200. As Ken
>>Rockwell said he likes them more than some others, even more expensive
>>ones.
>>
>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1855.htm
>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/55200.htm
>
> Ok - firstly - don't take what Ken Rockwell says as gospel. He is
> controversial and contradictory to say the least. Get a second
> opinion on everything he says.
>
> Secondly, I can't understate how much difference good lenses can
> make. I have used such lenses as the 18-55 and especially the 18-70
> lens (came with my D70) and whilst they are respectible 'kit' lenses
> have now traded up to better lenses as more cash became available. In
> my opinion, lenses such as the 18-55 don't really do cameras such as
> the D80 justice in most circumstances and end up being the limiting
> factor - you end up trying to create sharpness 'artificially'. If you
> go to your local camera shop and try a few higher quality lense you'll
> probably see what I mean.
>
>>
>>> You have not stated the lenses etc you are using, but my advice is
>>> don't go above +1 on the in-camera sharpening.
>>
>>Thanks, I will play with this setting again to get a better result. But I
>>guess you're right giving me this advice.
>
> Well it's just my take on the matter. There is no right or wrong at
> the end of the day, but if you consistently use +2 - expect to see the
> occasional odd effect creeping into some of your images.
>>
>>> If you have Photoshop - better results can be obtained using 'unsharp
>>> mask' than in-camera sharpening will give you in most circumstances as
>>> you have more control. e.g. to sharpen the hair in a portrait whilst
>>> leaving the skin tones fairly soft, you can apply unsharp mask using a
>>
>>True. It's important to hide all skin defects showing the hairs at the
>>same
>>time...)
>>
>>> high 'threshold' setting (only affects areas with large variation in
>>> adjacent pixel tone e.g. in hair and other areas of fine detail).
>>
>>Yes, that's good, you're right here.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Just D.
>> >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 sharpness |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2007
Posts: 93
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Nikon D80 sharpness [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"AK" <alan.kolnik.TakeThisOut@verizin.net> wrote in message news:xlSTh.72$jR5.35@trnddc08...
> I'm curious - I have the 18 - 70 kit lens, which, as you say, is quite respectible. I bought the 50 mm f/1.8 fixed focus lens
> which definitely seems sharper - what lens(es) do you use to replace the 18-70mm lens?
>
> Alan
I'd choose from among the 20mm f2.8 (used from f4.5/4.8 or so - or
if you have the D200, maybe a used 18mm f3.5 MF), 24mm f2.8,
35mm f2, 60mm f2.8, and 85mm f1.8 - these Nikkors are top-grade
or close full-frame lenses (an advantage for excellent evenness of
illumination and sharpness everywhere in the smaller digital frame,
even at wide stops). For a DX lens, the 17-55mm f2.8 Nikkor has
a good reputation, though it is rather expensive. BTW, you may find
my subjective lens evaluations (mostly Nikkors) interesting - at:
www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html
--
David Ruether
d_ruether.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com
www.donferrario.com/ruether/
(note address change) >> Stay informed about: Nikon D80 sharpness |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
| Related Topics: | Nikon 12+MP SLR for under $1000? - A local camera sales person told me Nikon is about to release a 12+MP SLR this month. It will sell for under $1000. Has anyone heard similar rumors? Still Shopping
Nikon D-50 - There has been little here on the D-50 either from the construction quality stand point or picture quality and prints. Anyone have some personal experience to share, please? -- There are two ways to spell Ockham/Occam. Britannica prefers the former.
Is anyone actually using the Nikon D80? - I'd loe to get some subjective opinions from the folks here. I've read the reviews... Are there any owners here who want to share their perceptions? --David Salmansohn-- Change "nospam" to my first name and .org to .com to reply
Nikon D40 - From the reviews that I have read so far The Nikon D40 has been rated very good I am in the process of upgrading from my Point and Shoot Cannon A610 of which have had for a year(Still a very nice Camera) to a DSLR would like a bit more megapixels but....
Nikon 45 f/2.8 - Anyone have any experience with this lens on digital cameras? Is it a viable option to the Pentax pancake? Thanks, DP |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
