stump4545 Posted May 22, 2012 Share #1 Posted May 22, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) do m9 files need to be sharpened more or less then say canon/nikon image files? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 22, 2012 Posted May 22, 2012 Hi stump4545, Take a look here m9 files and sharpening. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
esquire53 Posted May 23, 2012 Share #2 Posted May 23, 2012 no! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted May 23, 2012 Share #3 Posted May 23, 2012 i never sharpen mine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
akiralx Posted May 23, 2012 Share #4 Posted May 23, 2012 Less I would say. I normally do one USM pass at about 80/0.6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted May 23, 2012 Share #5 Posted May 23, 2012 Sharpening is dependent on output. Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom, by Jeff Schewe and Bruce Fraser is highly recommend as a text in understand proper sharpening in respect to output (plus the fundamentals and foundation of sharpening and what it is all about.) One can buy a Kindle edition and keep it as reference. Amazon.com: Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition) (9780321637550): Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe: Books Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted May 23, 2012 Share #6 Posted May 23, 2012 All digi files must be sharpened. If you think yours are ok, you need a new monitor or glasses. M9 files need about 30% need less than cameras with AA filters. It is a three step process, capture like in ACR., sharpen for effect in photoshop, and an output sharpen which makes the image look bad, but if neutralizes the shortcomings of the printing process. I recommend Real World Sharpening also so you understand the process fully. Way to complicated for a forum post. And there is no one size fits all formula. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nugat Posted May 23, 2012 Share #7 Posted May 23, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) it really depends on the content of the picture and intended output. The esthetic factor of the content cannot be decided by software but output (print technology, size, viewing conditions) can be successfully automated eg by Nik Sharpener Pro. I would say that non AA filter cameras require less sharpening. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Allsopp Posted May 23, 2012 Share #8 Posted May 23, 2012 Depends on the lens I suppose but my Summarits and Zeiss Biogon are way sharper than and Canon "L" glass. If I sharpen in Photoshop it will be a smart sharpen at 75% : 0.6 : 0. and see http://www.billallsopp.co.uk/sharpening-techniques Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted May 23, 2012 Share #9 Posted May 23, 2012 I sharpen the files from my M9 very little, and depending on the mood of the photograph sometimes never (like if I don't want a hard clinical look). Typically 60 to 80 Amount and 0.6 to 0.8 radius in USM. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted May 23, 2012 Share #10 Posted May 23, 2012 On my Canon files (and this will apply to Nikon too) I sharpen nominally at 100% to deal with the effects of the filter. On the M8/9 this should be unnecessary but, depending on subject matter, a slight amount of sharpening may be required (as ever its not possible to simply have a 'rule' to apply to everything). This is what I would personally refer to as 'base sharpening' as opposed to 'output sharpening' which is also required but which cannot be applied until a file is being created for a specific output purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 23, 2012 Share #11 Posted May 23, 2012 All digi files must be sharpened. If you think yours are ok, you need a new monitor or glasses. M9 files need about 30% need less than cameras with AA filters. It is a three step process, capture like in ACR., sharpen for effect in photoshop, and an output sharpen which makes the image look bad, but if neutralizes the shortcomings of the printing process. I recommend Real World Sharpening also so you understand the process fully. Way to complicated for a forum post. And there is no one size fits all formula. Best post so far in this thread. Most important part: "And there is no one size fits all formula." I sharpen my files with an import profile for each camera. My base in Lightroom, to start from is: M8.2: 45% M9: 55% Nikon D3: 65% I tend, to crank the M9 and D3 files a bit more up, while I often tone the M8.2 files a bit down from there. The dirty truth is indeed, that individual files need individual sharpening, depending on lens, aperture, ISO speed, subject matter, subject/ camera movement, feel. I do the sharpening in Lightroom in the same step, as noise reduction, if necessary, as these settings interfere A LOT with each other. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raul Posted May 23, 2012 Share #12 Posted May 23, 2012 what tobey said. yes, especially if you print. i usually have several versions of an image. a version for web posting and a version for printing. the version for printing is usually unsharpened and i let my friend who prints my images determine the proper sharpening parameters. i also do selective sharpening with layers depending on the photograph. there are instances when you apply global sharpening that you get, say, the eyes right and the hair, on the other hand, way too sharp... usually small elements in a photograph like pebbles on a shore, sand grain, etc can look way too oversharpened if you apply global sharpening vs. bigger elements (eyes/lips vs. hair/wrinkles). no one right answer and really depends on the photograph, personal preferences. my starting point is usually 150 and 2.0 or if i forget to sharpen before i resize for web posting, 150 and 0.1 to 0.3. for web posting with the M9, i can say on average that you can probably get away with no sharpening. very tricky with the M as the lenses can really render sharp 3d images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 23, 2012 Share #13 Posted May 23, 2012 M9 FAQ: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m9-forum/130720-m9-faqs-frequently-asked-questions-answers-2.html#post1585133 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
esquire53 Posted May 23, 2012 Share #14 Posted May 23, 2012 do m9 files need to be sharpened more or less then say canon/nikon image files? I guess the comments how much one sharpens the M9 or M8 and all the other makes is pretty irrelevant. To me it totally depends on the picture. One can also ask, how much do you un-sharpen areas of your picture to bring the focus to a certain area. I feel sharpening is often overdone and one can see the almost cut out contrast lines of persons in front of a wall. Less is sometimes more, so my answer is still "NO" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 23, 2012 Share #15 Posted May 23, 2012 Well, my answer is less that Canikony, as there is no AA filter to compensate for, but still, yes for best results the files do need proper sharpening, depending on subject and output, see the link above. Recommended book: Real Life Sharpening, by Fraser and Schewe. See CalArts' post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Negative Posted May 23, 2012 Share #16 Posted May 23, 2012 When compared to typical Canon/Nikon images - a lot less. If you've got nice glass even more so, if any at all. The lack of an AA filter and good glass makes for some really amazing files. Especially nice if you need to crop or enlarge. After I PP images, I usually reduce them for display online and as the last step I typically apply a very light "Smart Sharpen" to make the details really pop. But it depends on the lens, the image, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Bachmann Posted September 1, 2013 Share #17 Posted September 1, 2013 I was wondering the same question and came upon this thread. I have always sharpened most of my Canon/Pentax files, but often times don't do so on the Leica, especially when using a Summilux Pre-ASPH lens. While I can get it to look sharper with more punch, the sharpening some how kills much of the character of the lens. This is very different than the other cameras/lenses I've used. It is often better with less sharpening (I'm talking about capture and processing sharpening as opposed to media specific output sharpening). Adjusting other attributes (levels/contrast) can also have a negative effect to the character which I did not feel with other digital cameras/sensors. The other unique trait I find is that I very often love the M9 images converted to black and white, where it was a rare case with the Canon 5D. When I think there is no Leica magic, I consider how different the output makes me feel. There are other unique traits to the image, but sharpening and the black and white look are the two I can articulate. It sounds like some of you have found the same. Would you agree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul J Posted September 1, 2013 Share #18 Posted September 1, 2013 Sharpening is really something that is grossly, really grossly over done. Somehow, some people think that sharp images means a good lens, a good picture and that somehow it legitimises or elevates an image. Not the case at all IMO. Same as anything with retouching, it's far, far, far to easy to do too much. You need to leave some softness in to make it real. Not eliminate every skerick. Sharpening should really be applied according to print or display size and done at the last point. There is really no set amount it depends on the image size. Alot of "sharpening" issues are actually tonal and colour issues and I find contrast and colour adjustments far more effective and with higher quality than sharpening which is entirely destructive, chopping up tonality and colour. I had to sharpen my Canon files quite a lot though. I barely touch my Leica files. Out of interest too, I actually sharpen my Leica files a little less than my Phase One/Blad files. btw - for printing, especially offset printing, you need to sharpen a little more than what looks right. I get it to the point I'm happy and then just bump it up a fraction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted September 1, 2013 Share #19 Posted September 1, 2013 Paul, Do you see any role for creative pre-sharpening as provided by Nik? That's distinctly different from output sharpening according to their write-up. Contrast and clarity seem to have great influence on how sharp an image looks on screen. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted September 1, 2013 Share #20 Posted September 1, 2013 Agree with Paul. I see lots of images on the web (and in print) which have been ruined by excessive sharpening and post processing. I guess lots of people think sharper = better. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.