need to be sharpened?

"scenic_man" <l96wagt02 RemoveThis @sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:nCiFi.3442$Ic3.648@trndny09...
>I have a Nikon D70s, and frequently find that when I look at the results
> on my computer screen, they are noticeably blurry --
> not a *lot*, just not "tack sharp".
> This is using auto-focus, since I can never tell looking through the lens
> whether I've got the image perfectly focused or not.

Try viewing on someone else's monitor. Try posting a few samples publicly
for comments and critique .
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

scenic_man wrote:
> I have a Nikon D70s, and frequently find that when I look at the results
> on my computer screen, they are noticeably blurry --
> not a *lot*, just not "tack sharp".
> This is using auto-focus, since I can never tell looking through the lens
> whether I've got the image perfectly focused or not.
>
> I have taken all the precautions I can remember at the moment:
> * Make sure that focusing spot is actually on the object
> that I want to be in focus (or something at exactly the same distance).
> * Make sure that the target is not so featureless
> that the autofocus can't home in on it.
> * Make sure that I have adequate light for the autofocus to work.
> * Make sure I don't re-point the camera after having focused
> without holding the button down halfway to prevent refocusing.
>
> A person I know who shoots portraits (and, until recently, events)
> using a Fuji S2, has on several occasions said:
> "Frequently digital photos need to be sharpened."
> This seems really weird to me.
> I can't believe amateurs, let alone pros, would put up with this.
> Comments? Questions? Expressions of astonishment?


Most dslrs "default" sharpness settings for ex-camera jpg
are neutral - no sharpening applied.
Once an image is sharpened and saved, then you can't "undo"
that sharpening effect. It's better (for most people using
dslrs) to start with an unsharpened image, then apply the
appropriate level of sharpening in post-processing - or to
set the level of sharpening required in-camera.

Look at the "Optimize Image" settings in the menu. "Direct
Print" probably gives closer to what you may expect from a
"point and shoot" camera, or you can go in to the "Custom"
settings to tweak it as much as you want.

If it's a focus problem, then it could be a lens fault or a
camera calibration issue. You could test the camera
yourself to see if it's a back or front focus issue. With
the D70/s it's relatively "easy" to calibrate for back/front
focus, but still painstaking to do accurately.

D70/s raw files converted using Nikon Capture or RawShooter
essentials/pro are extremely sharp at the pixel level due to
the weak AA filter in the camera. With a good lens, they
are possibly "too sharp", as aliasing of fine lines can
sometimes become an issue on large prints.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

On Sep 10, 5:24 pm, scenic_man <l96wag... DeleteThis @sneakemail.com> wrote:
> I have a Nikon D70s, and frequently find that when I look at the results
> on my computer screen, they are noticeably blurry --
> not a *lot*, just not "tack sharp".
> This is using auto-focus, since I can never tell looking through the lens
> whether I've got the image perfectly focused or not.
>
> I have taken all the precautions I can remember at the moment:
> * Make sure that focusing spot is actually on the object
> that I want to be in focus (or something at exactly the same distance).
> * Make sure that the target is not so featureless
> that the autofocus can't home in on it.
> * Make sure that I have adequate light for the autofocus to work.
> * Make sure I don't re-point the camera after having focused
> without holding the button down halfway to prevent refocusing.
>
> A person I know who shoots portraits (and, until recently, events)
> using a Fuji S2, has on several occasions said:
> "Frequently digital photos need to be sharpened."
> This seems really weird to me.
> I can't believe amateurs, let alone pros, would put up with this.
> Comments? Questions? Expressions of astonishment?

There's a difference between "needs sharping" and "noticeably
blurry". Which are yours? They are different issues altogether.

BTW, most images do NOT need sharpening. Most are fine the way they
are. Many pro labs (including the two I use) recommend no sharpening
whatsoever to get the best printing results. Many people who do
portraits actually soften pictures, not sharpen them. No one wants to
see pores and nose-hair. YMMV.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

scenic_man wrote:
> I have a Nikon D70s, and frequently find that when I look at the results
> on my computer screen, they are noticeably blurry --
> not a *lot*, just not "tack sharp".
> This is using auto-focus, since I can never tell looking through the lens
> whether I've got the image perfectly focused or not.
>
> I have taken all the precautions I can remember at the moment:
> * Make sure that focusing spot is actually on the object
> that I want to be in focus (or something at exactly the same distance).
> * Make sure that the target is not so featureless
> that the autofocus can't home in on it.
> * Make sure that I have adequate light for the autofocus to work.
> * Make sure I don't re-point the camera after having focused
> without holding the button down halfway to prevent refocusing.
>
> A person I know who shoots portraits (and, until recently, events)
> using a Fuji S2, has on several occasions said:
> "Frequently digital photos need to be sharpened."
> This seems really weird to me.
> I can't believe amateurs, let alone pros, would put up with this.
> Comments? Questions? Expressions of astonishment?

Normal. And the best post process "sharpening" is oddly enough called
the "Unsharp mask" (a darkroom technique). Why it is so? Could be the
AA filter. Some cameras don't have an AA filter and yield very sharp
out of camera images (and in some cases wild aliasing effects).

Some cameras sharpen in-camera for the JPG's. The RAW are usually not
at all sharpened but may be during RAW import in PS.

Beyond that, for large aperture shots, use a tripod too. I've recently
found that manual focusing beyond the subject and then drawing back is
more accurate than focusing near and then working out. This might just
be me. In your case, if you depend on AF, then you might want to close
the aperture a stop to increase the DOF to account for the hysteresis
necessary in AF designs.

As another poster points out, once you reduce the shot for printing
(about 3:1 v the computer monitor) then the image will likely be
acceptably sharp in the print in most cases... I apply a USM for each
saved size. The trick is to not oversharpen. If you create "halo"
edges near contrasting lines, then it's a good bet you over did it.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

frederick wrote:

> D70/s raw files converted using Nikon Capture or RawShooter
> essentials/pro are extremely sharp at the pixel level due to
> the weak AA filter in the camera. With a good lens, they
> are possibly "too sharp", as aliasing of fine lines can
> sometimes become an issue on large prints.

I noticed some strange diffraction effects from photos of a local power
station which I have posted to pbase

http://www.pbase.com/boliston/image/75406554
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

> I noticed some strange diffraction effects from photos of a local power
> station which I have posted to pbase
>
> http://www.pbase.com/boliston/image/75406554

Wow ... that's a Moiré aliasing accident waiting to happen. Unusual but
real-life!
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

scenic_man wrote:

> I have a Nikon D70s, and frequently find that when I look at the results
> on my computer screen, they are noticeably blurry --
> not a *lot*, just not "tack sharp".
> This is using auto-focus, since I can never tell looking through the lens
> whether I've got the image perfectly focused or not.
>
> I have taken all the precautions I can remember at the moment:
> * Make sure that focusing spot is actually on the object
> that I want to be in focus (or something at exactly the same distance).
> * Make sure that the target is not so featureless
> that the autofocus can't home in on it.
> * Make sure that I have adequate light for the autofocus to work.
> * Make sure I don't re-point the camera after having focused
> without holding the button down halfway to prevent refocusing.
>
> A person I know who shoots portraits (and, until recently, events)
> using a Fuji S2, has on several occasions said:
> "Frequently digital photos need to be sharpened."
> This seems really weird to me.
> I can't believe amateurs, let alone pros, would put up with this.
> Comments? Questions? Expressions of astonishment?

Sharpening is normal for digital. DSLRs generally apply less default
sharpening than point & shoot digitals but they do apply some. It's
really a matter of taste how much you use and varies from picture to
picture.

Your photos may be suffering from a number of problems:
poor lens (many possibilities here)
not stopped down enough
not using fast enough shutter (hand shake)
autofocus miscalibrated (never heard of that problem with a D70)

The way I found to test is shoot raw or turn off the sharpening in your
default settings then use photoshop with a sharpening amount of 250 or
so and a radius of 0.3. If you don't see it sharpen up, there's
something wrong. With motion shake or misfocus or high ISO I sometimes
can't see any improvement until a radius of 1 and if it's more than that
there is something seriously wrong.

You can test the autofocus by shooting a target on a brick wall or
similar: have a contrasty target like a window corner and shoot at an
angle so you can see bricks in the foreground & background & see if that
matches up with the target. Set the camera on a solid ledge with a
weight on it to rule out shake problems or shoot at a high shutter
speed. Try different apertures: most lenses are sharpest at around f/8
of course that won't show autofocus inaccuracy as well so try wide open
also. Stopped down to f/16 or more the image should get unsharp again
due to diffraction.

The 18-70 lens is supposed to be quite good, the 18-55 not as
impressive, the 17-55 f/2.8 noticeably better under trying conditions,
etc. Really nice lenses are sharp not just in the center but at the
corners too and wide open all the way to f/8 and they will be more
contrasty, enhancing the apparent sharpness. Some lenses have problems
with chromatic abberation which degrades sharpness. Some lenses are more
susceptible to flare from light glancing across the front element or
bright areas in front of the lens.

Try renting a nice lens and compare.

--
Paul Furman Photography
http://edgehill.net
Bay Natives Nursery
http://www.baynatives.com
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

On Sep 11, 1:45 am, "Adrian Boliston" <adr... DeleteThis @boliston.co.uk> wrote:
> frederick wrote:
> > D70/s raw files converted using Nikon Capture or RawShooter
> > essentials/pro are extremely sharp at the pixel level due to
> > the weak AA filter in the camera. With a good lens, they
> > are possibly "too sharp", as aliasing of fine lines can
> > sometimes become an issue on large prints.
>
> I noticed some strange diffraction effects from photos of a local power
> station which I have posted to pbase
>
> http://www.pbase.com/boliston/image/75406554

That's not diffraction, it's aliasing artefacts. You can try other raw
converters, or maybe just select the area in your photo editor and
desaturate.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

Adrian Boliston wrote:
> frederick wrote:
>
>> D70/s raw files converted using Nikon Capture or RawShooter
>> essentials/pro are extremely sharp at the pixel level due to
>> the weak AA filter in the camera. With a good lens, they
>> are possibly "too sharp", as aliasing of fine lines can
>> sometimes become an issue on large prints.
>
> I noticed some strange diffraction effects from photos of a local power
> station which I have posted to pbase
>
> http://www.pbase.com/boliston/image/75406554
>
>
Moire / bayer demosaicing artifacts.
If shot raw, you could try different raw converter/settings
to correct it.
I have shot about 30,000 shots with a D70, and have probably
seen it significantly in about a dozen shots.
IMO I'd rather have a weak AA filter like D70, Canon 5d etc.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

In rec.photo.digital scenic_man <l96wagt02.TakeThisOut@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> I have a Nikon D70s, and frequently find that when I look at the results
> on my computer screen, they are noticeably blurry --
> not a *lot*, just not "tack sharp".
> This is using auto-focus, since I can never tell looking through the lens
> whether I've got the image perfectly focused or not.

> I have taken all the precautions I can remember at the moment:
> * Make sure that focusing spot is actually on the object
> that I want to be in focus (or something at exactly the same distance).
> * Make sure that the target is not so featureless
> that the autofocus can't home in on it.
> * Make sure that I have adequate light for the autofocus to work.
> * Make sure I don't re-point the camera after having focused
> without holding the button down halfway to prevent refocusing.

> A person I know who shoots portraits (and, until recently, events)
> using a Fuji S2, has on several occasions said:
> "Frequently digital photos need to be sharpened."
> This seems really weird to me.
> I can't believe amateurs, let alone pros, would put up with this.
> Comments? Questions? Expressions of astonishment?

Back in the old days of film the amount of sharpening in the negative
due to local developer exhaustion was controlled by the amount of
agitation during the development process. The same technique was used
in the developing of the print.

I can't understand why someone would think that such a standard and
well accepted method in the days of film would suddenly become
unnecessary and unacceptable in digital photography.

--
Chris Malcolm cam.TakeThisOut@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

Alan Browne <alan.browne DeleteThis @Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Pat wrote:
>
>> BTW, most images do NOT need sharpening.
>All images need to be optimally sharpened (unsharp
>masked) for the desired print size.

USM is not sharpening. To some degree the visual results
are similar. But far fewer images are improved with USM
than with sharpening.

>That most people do
>not know how to do this w/o overdoing it and creating
>artifacts such as halos is another matter.

With USM yes, but not with sharpening, which has different
effects when over done..

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

Pat wrote:

> BTW, most images do NOT need sharpening.


All images need to be optimally sharpened (unsharp masked) for the
desired print size. That most people do not know how to do this w/o
overdoing it and creating artifacts such as halos is another matter.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened? 

Floyd L. Davidson <floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
> USM is not sharpening. To some degree the visual results
> are similar. But far fewer images are improved with USM
> than with sharpening.

Which sharpening algorithm do you say produces better results than USM?
Convolution sharpening? High pass filter?

> With USM yes, but not with sharpening, which has different
> effects when over done..

Most advocates of heavy USM are not looking closely at their images.
Perhaps they are old folks who are to vain to wear reading glasses.
 >> Stay informed about: need to be sharpened?