bpalme Posted July 22, 2011 Share #1 Posted July 22, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) On my M8 I'm finding some super fine detail shots of trees and bushes the jpeg is sharper than what I can do with raw. I've tried various combos and sharpen last. One website recommends: Sharpen 40 Radius .5-.6 Detail 80 Masking 0 for this type of photo. Any recommends? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 22, 2011 Posted July 22, 2011 Hi bpalme, Take a look here JPEG sharper than Processed RAW. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
prunelle Posted July 22, 2011 Share #2 Posted July 22, 2011 Forget the web-site, trust your eyes! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share #3 Posted July 22, 2011 Forget the web-site, trust your eyes! Yeah, maybe I'm not clear. I'm asking for any pointers to get as sharp as a jpeg... or is that even possible? This website says jpegs are sharper anyway: http://www.digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 22, 2011 Share #4 Posted July 22, 2011 Buy "Real World Sharpening" by Fraser and Schewe. It is far more complicated than can be explained on a forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share #5 Posted July 22, 2011 Buy "Real World Sharpening" by Fraser and Schewe. It is far more complicated than can be explained on a forum. Thanks Jaapv. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougg Posted July 23, 2011 Share #6 Posted July 23, 2011 On my M8 I'm finding some super fine detail shots of trees and bushes the jpeg is sharper than what I can do with raw. Hi - I assume your JPEGs are straight from the camera? Just out of curiosity, I picked virtually at random a few pairs of files to examine; each pair with one from-camera JPEG vs one TIFF processed with C1, with the sharpening amount set to about half the default setting, leaving the other related parameters alone. No other sharpening software was used, and the files were compared with the Mac shareware program GraphicConverter. The camera was an M8 with 35 Summilux ASPH. For each pair, it seemed to me the TIFF was sharper, but it's an unfair comparison due to the other operations performed in the processing, such as increased color saturation and contrast. I tried to ignore that in examining fine detail, but I sure couldn't say that the JPEGs were sharper. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted July 23, 2011 Share #7 Posted July 23, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) On my M8 I'm finding some super fine detail shots of trees and bushes the jpeg is sharper than what I can do with raw. I've tried various combos and sharpen last. One website recommends: Sharpen 40 Radius .5-.6 Detail 80 Masking 0 for this type of photo. Any recommends? I don't understand why you can't make a RAW file as sharp as a JPEG? The only thing that occurs to me is that the sharpening effect appears much stronger on your JPEG because its a smaller file. For a .TIFF file converted from a RAW file you can use much more sharpening and not degrade the image as much in doing so. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbraid Posted July 24, 2011 Share #8 Posted July 24, 2011 Yeah, maybe I'm not clear. I'm asking for any pointers to get as sharp as a jpeg... or is that even possible? This website says jpegs are sharper anyway: RAW vs. JPEG It seems there is some misunderstanding here. The website you quote makes the statement that RAW files are not as sharp as JPGs but this can only be the case because the RAW data has been sharpened by the camera in the process of converting the RAW data to the JPG. The RAW file has not been processed in the same way. There is no reason that you should not be able to apply sharpening to the RAW data and achieve a similar result (unless the RAW file is not a true RAW file). I agree with Jaap that the book by Schewe and Fraser is excellent. Donald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbraid Posted July 24, 2011 Share #9 Posted July 24, 2011 Yeah, maybe I'm not clear. I'm asking for any pointers to get as sharp as a jpeg... or is that even possible? This website says jpegs are sharper anyway: RAW vs. JPEG It seems there is some misunderstanding here. The website you quote makes the statement that RAW files are not as sharp as JPGs but this can only be the case because the RAW data has been sharpened by the camera in the process of converting the RAW data to the JPG. The RAW file has not been processed in the same way. There is no reason that you should not be able to apply sharpening to the RAW data and achieve a similar result (unless the RAW file is not a true RAW file). I agree with Jaap that the book by Schewe and Fraser is excellent. Donald Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share #10 Posted July 26, 2011 Not sure what I'm doing wrong. Here's a link to the jpeg and raw . For some reason the 10mb raw only uploads as 4.8mb on DPR. jpeg L1042049: bpalme: Galleries: Digital Photography Review Raw: L1042049: bpalme: Galleries: Digital Photography Review For the life of me I just can't get this one as sharp as the jpeg. Usually I can get results I I'm happy with but they don't necessarily have the fine details as this photo. I pay particular attention to the scrub brush on the left. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share #11 Posted July 26, 2011 Also I don't have my camera with me so I'm not sure what the in camera jpeg sharpening is set to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 26, 2011 Share #12 Posted July 26, 2011 To me, both the images you link to look sharp. Unless I'm missing something, as posted, they're both JPGs. When I download them, the one you label above as "jpg" is 661 k in size; the one you label as "raw" is 578 k in size. They're both 1600 pixels across. They've both been downsized, right? Even the "jpg" you link to isn't direct out of camera, is it? Those are both pretty small images and must have had some further processing, possibly done by dpreview when you uploaded them. When you can, do let us know how the camera jpg parameters are set, just to give us a starting point as you mentioned. The "jpg" has definitely had more sharpening than the "raw" image, and although it looks crisper on this old monitor, it might look a little oversharpened to some people. What software are you using to process the raw image? What procedure do you use to produce the version you've linked to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share #13 Posted July 26, 2011 To me, both the images you link to look sharp. (Of course, as posted, they're both JPGs. The one you label as "jpg" is 661 k in size, 1600 x 1067 pixels. The one you label as "raw" is 578 k in size, 1600 x 1075 pixels.) The "jpg" has definitely had more sharpening than the "raw" image, and although it looks crisper on this old monitor, it might look a little oversharpened to some people. When you can, do let us know how the camera jpg parameters are set, just to give us a starting point. Am I right that the "jpg" you link to is direct out of camera? What software are you using to process the raw image? What procedure do you use to produce the version you've linked to? Sure will. The Jpeg I think is +1 sharpening and it is straight OOC. The Raw looks just like the 10mb unsharpened on my monitor. I don't know why it reduces it for DPreview. When I upload the 10mb raw that's what shows up on DPR. Also when I try adjusting the OOC jpeg contrast and saturation just a tad it loses sharpness. Sound normal? One other thing is after post on the raw and OOC jpeg I'm reducing it for web viewing to about 300k.. maybe some sharpness is lost there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 26, 2011 Share #14 Posted July 26, 2011 ... For some reason the 10mb raw only uploads as 4.8mb on DPR.... I don't know anything about their site, but that's approximately the size that an M8 DNG comes out if you run it through a DNG conversion that implements Adobe's lossless compression. Were you actually able to upload a DNG to dpreview? That would mean that they've done the additional processing necessary to get it online. Impressive service! (Edit: I see you posted your response a minute before I made my last edit to the above post, but I didn't make any important changes.) Are you using Photoshop? Capture One? Aperture? Lightroom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share #15 Posted July 26, 2011 Ok.. I've been redoing this over and over and I think one thing I did not do was check a box when exporting from light room. It's the output sharpening box. You can choose export sharping for print or screen. I thought all the other sharpening I was doing just took care of that whole category. By checking that box I can at least get it as sharp as the OOC jpeg now. Thanks for the input folks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted July 26, 2011 Share #16 Posted July 26, 2011 Good for you! Congratulations! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpalme Posted July 26, 2011 Author Share #17 Posted July 26, 2011 I don't know anything about their site, but that's approximately the size that an M8 DNG comes out if you run it through a DNG conversion that implements Adobe's lossless compression. Were you actually able to upload a DNG to dpreview? That would mean that they've done the additional processing necessary to get it online. Impressive service! (Edit: I see you posted your response a minute before I made my last edit to the above post, but I didn't make any important changes.) Are you using Photoshop? Capture One? Aperture? Lightroom? Yes. Thanks again for the help. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.