24-90 DNG sharpening in Lightroom – how much for you?

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I took some close-range test shots today with my new SL and 24-90. Image shooting parameters:

 

Shots taken at 24mm/50mm/90mm for all

Subject was at an angle to verify focus point / distance approx 1.5'

DNG files

Auto ISO (every shot was ISO 50)

Handheld

Single-point autofocus

Bright sunlight/high shutter speeds

Sets taken at widest apertures

Sets taken at f/8

Sets taken with and without OIS

Tried both Adobe Standard and Embedded profiles

 

All the shots regardless of the above looked great at about 80/85 sharpening in Lightroom. The DNG files look softer than I'm used to.

 

I shot the Fujifilm GFX before sending it back for the SL. The GFX RAW files are nearly over-sharpened by default. I also use the Leica Q, and I never need to add sharpening to its DNG files (of course it's a high-end fixed prime lens, too). But still, I've never seen a RAW file I had to push this far. No complaints, though, the files look good once sharpened. Is everyone else needing to add this much sharpening with the 24-90?

Edited August 31, 2017 by hdmesa

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thighslapper]

I like sharp photos so I am with you on the 80-90 mark which at low ISO's adds no appreciable noise or artefacts. M240 tolerated a lot less. Every sensor and every manufacturers firmware has a different default value. 

 

Having said that if downsizing for posting it doesn't achieve much, and in reality for prints you don't need as much as you think, even for A2 enlargements. 

 

For pixel peeping this seems about right 

Edited August 31, 2017 by thighslapper

[hdmesa]

I like sharp photos so I am with you on the 80-90 mark which at low ISO's adds no appreciable noise or artefacts. M240 tolerated a lot less. Every sensor and every manufacturers firmware has a different default value. 

 

Having said that if downsizing for posting it doesn't achieve much, and in reality for prints you don't need as much as you think, even for A2 enlargements. 

 

For pixel peeping this seems about right 

 

 

Hah! That's exactly what I meant, was "seems right at 100%". It's funny how pixel peeping is often spoken of in a negative light (pun); however, I find it an enjoyable part of the experience – sort of like looking at a transparency on a light table under high magnification. 

[ramarren]

I set Lightroom to either its default or drop back to 12 on the sharpening amount scale for SL DNG files with the SL24-90. More than that and the image looks over-sharpened to my eyes. If that's not the case for you, well, you're likely missing focus by a little bit or moving the camera. 

 

I did my sharpening baseline tests with the camera on a tripod and image stabilization off. I don't see much difference between that and camera hand-held with image stabilization on. It's extremely rare that I find I need to sharpen an SL image unless I didn't get the focus correct in the first place. 

[hdmesa]

I set Lightroom to either its default or drop back to 12 on the sharpening amount scale for SL DNG files with the SL24-90. More than that and the image looks over-sharpened to my eyes. If that's not the case for you, well, you're likely missing focus by a little bit or moving the camera. 

 

I did my sharpening baseline tests with the camera on a tripod and image stabilization off. I don't see much difference between that and camera hand-held with image stabilization on. It's extremely rare that I find I need to sharpen an SL image unless I didn't get the focus correct in the first place. 

 

 

To be clear, are you talking about viewing the entire image as you sharpen it, or are you viewing at 100%?

[hdmesa]

I may have found my issue. I've been using my MacBook Pro at a scaled-up resolution. At the default resolution, the DNGs look much, much sharper, but still look good with a lot of sharpening added. I had no idea I was viewing everything at 200% for the last year thinking I was at 100%! Chalk this one up to user error and stupidity.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The purposes of sharpening is to extract optimum or maximal detail from the original sensor output.

 

If you don't need it or don't like it, then don't do it. There is no correct level and it's entirely a matter of taste. 

[ramarren]

To be clear, are you talking about viewing the entire image as you sharpen it, or are you viewing at 100%?

 

 

I always sharpen while viewing the image at 100% (1:1 pixel resolution). I check the sharpening by viewing the image on screen at the print size (with a 27" hires display, it's a pretty good simulation of prints in the 8x10 to 13x19 inch size range), but generally it's better to multi-print with a critical print a series of sharpening of important detail for the best evaluation. I find it necessary to do so only very rarely. 

 

... 

Yes, you cannot judge sharpening properly at scaled up resolutions, or at least I cannot.

Edited September 1, 2017 by ramarren

[LocalHero1953]

For the M240 and SL lenses I have a default import sharpening of about 25, but if the images are well exposed and focused at low ISO I don't think I'd need any sharpening for posting online or printing uncropped. I see too many oversharpened pictures to want to risk going down that road. I sharpen at 100%, but how often are you displaying these images to others at 100%?

[Joshua Lowe]

The "right" amount of sharpening also depends on the display method. Printing calls for more sharpening than screens, generally speaking. In my experience, at least.

[Ario Arioldi]

 

The sharpening module in Lr has been designed to be used at 100% zoom (one image pixel represented by one display pixel). At any other zoom value pixel dithering will negatively affect the preview accuracy.

[hdmesa]

The sharpening module in Lr has been designed to be used at 100% zoom (one image pixel represented by one display pixel). At any other zoom value pixel dithering will negatively affect the preview accuracy.

Yup, I was sharpening and reviewing sharpness zoomed in too far instead of being at 1:1. Everything is better now that I got my Mac laptop resolution set at the default resolution instead of being scaled up. But I still find that with the SL images I can push the sharpening further than I could with the Canon 5DsR or the Fujifilm GFX50S RAW files. Even pushing the sharpness in Lightroom up to around 80 seems in line with the sharpening applied to SL JPEGs at the factory defaults.

Edited September 3, 2017 by hdmesa

[hdmesa]

The "right" amount of sharpening also depends on the display method. Printing calls for more sharpening than screens, generally speaking. In my experience, at least.

My output is mostly for Instagram, and I find that a good deal of sharpening in Lightroom to the DNG files improves perceived sharpness on IG quite a bit.

[david strachan]

I'm not a fan of sharpening...

 

Too many pictures are ruined by pushing the slider.

 

A little maybe...but many of my 50's Summicron, are sharp enough.

 

Over sharpening looks ghastly...the quickest way to ruin a nice composition

 

...

[lx1713]

I generally work in Iridient Developer, which leans heavily towards details as a default setup. I add just a light touch to the clarity to give it a slight punch viewed at 100% and 50% (I was taught this, can't remember why  ). An Eizo display set for adobe 1998 colour space gives me considerably better accuracy in color and contrast compared to my MacBook Pro's retina display.

 

I feel it's somewhat important for the sharpening for output to be optimised at final output by people most qualified to do so. But 90% of my output is calibrated for a standard sRGB which prints very nicely on Fujifilm Frontier with no adjustments. The demand for excellence in print output has fallen a great deal for me in recent years    

[blacksinner]

do you use filter? try to take it off. my copy is very sharp without filter. i used to think this lens is not sharp, and then i take the filter off, it solved my problem. i almost sell the lens. this lens is incredible. 

if you sharpen it as high as 80. then i think its your taste. even if i use sharpened maximum i use is 25-30. this is the maximum. if i pushed further the image looks fake. its so ugly. i don't know how you can use sharpened until 80. can you show to us the sample image you sharpened and not sharpened so we can tell you what we think

[thighslapper]

One if these is an 'ugly image that looks fake' sharpened to 100 ......

 

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!

Edited September 4, 2017 by thighslapper

[thighslapper]

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!

 

What a lot of nonsense.

 

The requirements and degree of sharpening are entirely image dependent.

 

ps.

...... and you can sharpen the hell out of Noctilux images wide open as there is so little in the image that is actually in focus and sharpish to start with .....  without any penalty .... and it greatly enhances the 3d effect created by the shallow DOF. (these are Sigma Art 135/1.8)

Edited September 4, 2017 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[hdmesa]

I don't need to add sharpening to typical landscape shots with the 24-90. As I mentioned in the original post, these are close-range shots at around 1.5'. The images have a lot of detail that react differently to sharpening than does a shot taken at infinity focus. Do any of your comments about your preferred sharpness still hold up at this distance? If you're only leaving the default or even pulling back, then I have a bad copy of this lens.

 

I set Lightroom to either its default or drop back to 12 on the sharpening amount scale for SL DNG files with the SL24-90. More than that and the image looks over-sharpened to my eyes. If that's not the case for you, well, you're likely missing focus by a little bit or moving the camera. 

 

I did my sharpening baseline tests with the camera on a tripod and image stabilization off. I don't see much difference between that and camera hand-held with image stabilization on. It's extremely rare that I find I need to sharpen an SL image unless I didn't get the focus correct in the first place. 

 

 

For the M240 and SL lenses I have a default import sharpening of about 25, but if the images are well exposed and focused at low ISO I don't think I'd need any sharpening for posting online or printing uncropped. I see too many oversharpened pictures to want to risk going down that road. I sharpen at 100%, but how often are you displaying these images to others at 100%?

 

 

I'm not a fan of sharpening...

Too many pictures are ruined by pushing the slider.

A little maybe...but many of my 50's Summicron, are sharp enough.

Over sharpening looks ghastly...the quickest way to ruin a nice composition

...

[hdmesa]

do you use filter? try to take it off. my copy is very sharp without filter. i used to think this lens is not sharp, and then i take the filter off, it solved my problem. i almost sell the lens. this lens is incredible. 

if you sharpen it as high as 80. then i think its your taste. even if i use sharpened maximum i use is 25-30. this is the maximum. if i pushed further the image looks fake. its so ugly. i don't know how you can use sharpened until 80. can you show to us the sample image you sharpened and not sharpened so we can tell you what we think

 

I can't tell any difference after adding a B+W clear filter just the other day.

 

I don't increase the sharpness on landscape shots – only shots near the minimum focusing distance.