abrewer Posted June 5, 2011 Share #1  Posted June 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I turned the sharpening in-camera down b/c the images all looked oversharpened to me  That helped  However, comparing out-of-camera jpegs with RAW, it looked like there was a dullness and lack of pop in the former and a flatness in the latter  Here's what I see, with some levels adjustment in the RAW (second) image:  Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/153448-oversharpened-and-dull/?do=findComment&comment=1692444'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 5, 2011 Posted June 5, 2011 Hi abrewer, Take a look here Oversharpened and dull. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
abrewer Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share #2  Posted June 5, 2011 Again  Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!  ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/153448-oversharpened-and-dull/?do=findComment&comment=1692445'>More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share #3  Posted June 5, 2011 I'm happy with the RAW images sharpened 125 in Camera Raw and with a levels adjustment, and a tiny bit of USM, in PS; starting to look more like my usual style with film scanned to CD  This little camera is pretty good   Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiltonJoy Posted June 5, 2011 Share #4  Posted June 5, 2011 From the low shadow detail I assume it was overcast with cloud cover.  Two questions please.  1. Did you have W/B set to auto ? 2. What metering mode did you use ?  Second pictures certainly "pop" more.  Just trying to learn  Cheers Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 5, 2011 Author Share #5 Â Posted June 5, 2011 AWB Evaluative Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted June 8, 2011 Share #6 Â Posted June 8, 2011 I would agree with you Allan - the OOC jpegs do generally look a little dull and flat cf. the DNG's. It's a shame that Leica did not provide a DNG only setting, and they told me that it was not possible to add one in a firmware update. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeTexas Posted June 8, 2011 Share #7 Â Posted June 8, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The second photos are brighter but almost to the point of overexposure on the whites. You might add a little bit of the Recovery slider (that's what it's called in Camera RAW, not sure about Lightroom) to bring back the detail in the sky and the white areas and then up the contrast slider just a bit to get the "pop" without blowing out the highlights. Â The lighter ones are adjusted about right to print in a newspaper due to the off-white paper, but the darker originals will look much better if you make photo prints or use them in a magazine. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 8, 2011 Share #8 Â Posted June 8, 2011 I see quite some unneccessary sharpening artefacts in the RAW processed images haloes and the like - I think you need to go to three-step sharpening as advocated by Fraser and Schewe to get really good results. And don't sharpen the color channels, stay with the luminosity! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted June 8, 2011 Share #9 Â Posted June 8, 2011 I see quite some unneccessary sharpening artefacts in the RAW processed images haloes and the like - I think you need to go to three-step sharpening as advocated by Fraser and Schewe to get really good results. And don't sharpen the color channels, stay with the luminosity! Â In these posted shots? Really? Â I see JPEG artifacts, not haloes. Â I don't think you need a three stage sharpening process anymore with modern digitals. That process was fine in its day but a lot of things have changed since. Â I really think you only need output sharpening. USM does the trick 99% of the time; I still have Schewe and Fraser's Photokit sharpener lying around though... but I never use anything but default capture sharpening and don't do "creative sharpening" any more if I can help it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob24 Posted June 8, 2011 Share #10 Â Posted June 8, 2011 I agree the RAW copies look more pleasing (especially for the first picture). But to me it looks like the main diffenrece is that the the RAW the exposure has been made brighter, and the white balance warmer. So not really JPEG processing as per say (it looks tovmy with +2/3 EV exposure and a different White balance the camera could have produced the same straight in JPEG. Â Am I missing something? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest badbob Posted June 8, 2011 Share #11 Â Posted June 8, 2011 From what I've seen on the luminous landscape forum, the extra sharpening steps do produce much better results than just output sharpening, unless your images are nearly ideal at that moment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted June 8, 2011 Share #12  Posted June 8, 2011 Allan  Don't forget you are used to your lab doing your scans. They will increase contrast and sharpening before you even see them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share #13  Posted June 8, 2011 Good point, Andy  I was just surprised how flat the OOC jpegs looked compared to what I liked in RAW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share #14  Posted June 8, 2011 The second photos are brighter but almost to the point of overexposure on the whites. You might add a little bit of the Recovery slider (that's what it's called in Camera RAW, not sure about Lightroom) to bring back the detail in the sky and the white areas and then up the contrast slider just a bit to get the "pop" without blowing out the highlights. The lighter ones are adjusted about right to print in a newspaper due to the off-white paper, but the darker originals will look much better if you make photo prints or use them in a magazine.  I typically avoid the white dropper in Levels as it does seem to scorch the highlights regardless of where I apply it, and indeed I did not use it in these images either Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share #15  Posted June 8, 2011 I agree the RAW copies look more pleasing (especially for the first picture). But to me it looks like the main diffenrece is that the the RAW the exposure has been made brighter, and the white balance warmer. So not really JPEG processing as per say (it looks tovmy with +2/3 EV exposure and a different White balance the camera could have produced the same straight in JPEG. Am I missing something?  White balance and exposure were not touched during PP Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 8, 2011 Share #16 Â Posted June 8, 2011 In these posted shots? Really? Â I see JPEG artifacts, not haloes. Â I don't think you need a three stage sharpening process anymore with modern digitals. That process was fine in its day but a lot of things have changed since. Â I really think you only need output sharpening. USM does the trick 99% of the time; I still have Schewe and Fraser's Photokit sharpener lying around though... but I never use anything but default capture sharpening and don't do "creative sharpening" any more if I can help it. Look around the spoilers. Still, I might eat my words on seeing prints instead of web JPGs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrewer Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share #17  Posted June 8, 2011 ...spoilers...  Wings  Spoilers is for stock cars   Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.