Question re. in-camera versus Photoshop sharpening

I have done a couple of tests comparing in-camera sharpening versus sharpening in PS (I have Pentax DL).

The result is that I have difficulty detecting much difference, in fact the photos taken with in-camera sharpening set to +2 look as good as the ones I sharpen during post-processing. Sharpening in PS does not result in less noise as far as I can ascertain.

As this seems to contradict the theory, can anybody explain what is happening? Has anybody done more systematic tests ?

did you try Mattmatic's Sharpening technique in photoshop? try that one for comparison....or silkypix...or aperture's edge sharpening....on a raw file.

The received wisdom is that a PC has more processing power than available in camera, therefore sharpening is PS is more sophisticated an approach. But there is more to it than that. All the processing we do introduces artifacts in the image, and sharpening increasesd edge contrast. This would make matters worse if after sharpening there is any degree of manipulation.

It depends in the end what size you are printing at. At A3 you would probably see the difference. At screen resolutions maybe you wouldn't. It will also depend on the subject.

The principle of sharpening last is a good one, even though the differnce may sometimes be small.

Were you shooting in RAW or JPG? AFAIK, in-camera sharpening only applies to JPG. Shoot RAW and sort it out on the computer, that was the design philosophy followed by the designers as there is a heck of a lot more computing power in your PC compared to the camera.

...But I expect Matt'll be along to put me right any moment now

Tim,
You're absolutely right
In-camera sharpening applies to JPG and the JPG thumbnail that's included in the RAW file.

RAW file demosaicing (see Wikipedia) is extremely easy to describe but very difficult to do in practice. There are many methods of actually doing this process, and the camera has to take a middle ground as it has limited processing resources.

Capture One is pretty excellent in demosaicing, Silkypix has much more control (and sharpness like you wouldn't believe from a 6Mp, and mind numbingly sharp from the K10D :shock. Adobe Camera Raw is pretty good too - but I've seen it produce more artifacts than the others, especially in high ISO images.

As John says, it depends to a large degree on the subject. If you have top-notch lenses, and good photographic methods then you'll benefit from sharpening on the PC - and again, it depends on the subject matter as well as how much (and what method) to use.

A good place to start is www.thelightsrightstudio.com - check out the sharpening tutorials (There's alos a thread I started on the subject!)

Matt

Matt and Tim:

Thanks for your replies. I am sure you are right about the "correct" way of doing this. But as an amateur photographer, I am surprised at the amount of tweaking I have to do in Photoshop for a result which is nearly the same as what the camera produces automatically (when you set in-camera sharpness to +1 or +2). Have you tried to compare yourself? I am surprised by how well the camera does this.

With Silkypix you get very good results by using the default settings it provides.
I am still looking for a good guide on sharpening with silkypix.

Nicolay,

I only shoot RAW, so changing the in-camera sharpening settings won't affect what I am shooting. I prefer RAW because of the flexibility it gives in post-processing the images. Give it a try and I'm sure you'll be as amazed as Lilly was!

I would never sharpen in Camera. If you do so you are stuck with the settings and it cannot be undone in PP. I would also suggest that your in camera colour space be Adobe and sRGB. It has a wider colour Gamut.
You may regret your doing in camera sharpening when one day you decide to print a large poster size image for example.

Adobe and SRGB?

G

I think Ben meant "Adobe instead of sRGB". AdobeRGB has a much wide gamut than sRGB.

But then it doesn't matter for RAW anyway - 'cause it's set in the RAW software later.
Matt

If you shoot in PEF or DNG for that matter and use CS2 with ACR3.7 the new data for the K10D is very accurate IMHO. The new options in ACR are very friendly to the beginner as well as the advanced user. The WB could be set to as shot or you might select an option that pleases your eye then just click [AUTO] and the result is far superior to the JPG that the camera produced along with the raw file. You can than tweak the black and white points to your taste if necessary. I sometimes need to alter the brightness (misnamed as it actually changes the gamma, but what the hell). Give it a try.

Ron McDermott