The dreaded JPEG subject

[Guest]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Covid got me back into long forgotten night harbour/illuminated bridges type photography so i needed to abandon my JPEGS are just like slides philosophy because i needed better white balance control mostly but also highlight/shadow control.

So i took up my free 3 month lightroom subscription bla bla.

Before lightroom i used paint.net [ dont laugh] which worked fine for me especially as my main topic is recording my 4 grand childrens life with odd sorties into waterfall/coastal photography.

The problem i have had despite endless research and any number of different sharpening settings is that my edits are never sharper than my paint.net jpegs!!  its a very close thing at 100% viewing but every time and whatever the subject the out of camera jpeg has a slight edge.

I am aware that sharpening is a trick of manipulating contrast to fool the eye.

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

As far as I know, the "sharpest" and "best" file you can get from the camera is the RAW file, with all the data from the sensor - the DNG file.  From that information you or your camera or any software you want can create a 'jpg' images.  Assuming nobody points out how I'm wrong here, the next question is what software you ought to use to create a 'jpg' from the DNG file.  As to Lightroom vs. paint.net vs Luminar vs Photolab vs ON1, you can use the trial versions of each to create images from the same DNG, and then decide which one you prefer.

From what you wrote, I think you already know this, but there is a difference between how sharp something is, and how sharp it looks like it is.  What is your final goal for the images?  Prints, web files, slides, or ???

Edited November 16, 2020 by MikeMyers

[FrozenInTime]

Try the texture, clarity and de-haze sliders - they increase the local contrast and color saturation ; each with a different balance.

Take it easy not to over cook especially with de-haze which really boosts the color vibrance

[Good To Be Retired]

As you didn't actually ask a specific question, I'm making what is possibly an overly general response.  However ..........

A jpeg is a jpeg regardless of how you get there.  They're all converted somewhere, somehow, from the raw data.  If a more modest program produces what you prefer to have as a finished product that's neither here nor there.  Or if OOC jpegs are what floats your boat, you're in a pretty large boat   Sports photographers and others who shoot to deadlines manage to make a living off OOC images.(Disclaimer:  I admit to being a bit of an equipment snob myself, so take my comments as you will )

Having said that, if your program of choice has a more aggressive sharpening process than you have been able to apply with Lightroom (which I don't use myself, I prefer just using ACR and Photoshop) then it's just a matter of selecting settings that provide a stronger result.  Same for OCC jpegs, the camera applies sharpening just like any desktop computer.  Less horsepower to do it, but still the same basic deal.  

Pretty much any program is capable of over-sharpening, so it's not like you're going to run out of it in Lightroom.  Push out some more settings.  Use ALL the sliders, including Clarity.  Sooner or later you'll find what you like (although, if you're a slow learner like me, it may not be fore the free trial is up

It does occur to me though that sharpening is highly dependent on the viewing medium.  And personal taste.  What I I like on a 27 inch monitor might not match your preferred results on, say, an iPad.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Good To Be Retired

[jkcampbell2]

Sharpening is a bit of science. You want to be selective as to what part of your image you sharpen. Over sharpening or sharpening the entire image can create noise. Do a quick Youtube search on sharpening in Lightroom and you'll find many tutorials on how the "mask" function controls what gets sharpened. There are also many videos on sharpening for your desired output, be it print or web. The DXO Nik Collection also offers a stand alone sharpening app that works thru Lightroom and Photoshop. Cheers, jc

[Guest]

Basically i am importing a jpeg sharpened in camera into lightroom along with the raw file from the same image.

But when i get my raw file how i want it in lightroom it still does not look quite as sharp as the in camera jpeg does.

Must try harder i suppose?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Covid got me back into long forgotten night harbour/illuminated bridges type photography so i needed to abandon my JPEGS are just like slides philosophy because i needed better white balance control mostly but also highlight/shadow control.

So i took up my free 3 month lightroom subscription bla bla.

Before lightroom i used paint.net [ dont laugh] which worked fine for me especially as my main topic is recording my 4 grand childrens life with odd sorties into waterfall/coastal photography.

The problem i have had despite endless research and any number of different sharpening settings is that my edits are never sharper than my paint.net jpegs!!  its a very close thing at 100% viewing but every time and whatever the subject the out of camera jpeg has a slight edge.

I am aware that sharpening is a trick of manipulating contrast to fool the eye.

Sharpening  is indeed a  function of edge contrast. However you must make a distinction between creating optical acuity on the screen  and creating controlled halos for printing (similar to the edge effect in film photography) Lightroom is geared towards the latter. To get  optimal sharpening to display on your screen the use of either sophisticated Photoshop methods (like creating a high-pass layer, or using the L channel in LAB and three-step sharpening) or a dedicated  sharpening program, like Topaz Sharpen AI or  Franzis Sharpen Project is needed . In-camera JPG sharpening is more slanted to use on a monitor.

Recommended reading on the subject is Fraser and Schewe: real World Sharpening, despite this being a somewhat older book.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom/dp/0321637550

[John Miranda]

To me, the additional color bit depth of a RAW file vs. JPG (8 bits per channel) are even more important than the sharpening aspects, such as when trying to recover shadows or highlights.  I had JPG files shot ten years ago while in New Zealand or Greece that I wish I had shot in RAW to give more editing headroom, and the moment is gone and difficult to recreate as these are distant destinations.  

Since then, I never shot JPG, no matter what, you just don't know, ten years hence, you may revisit a file to make a print and wish you had the additional information that the JPG conversion process discards...

[jaapv]

Not only that, 8-bits files are prone to posterizing artifacts.
Imagine an 8-bits file as a row of 8 buckets and a 16-bits one as a row of 16 buckets containing your colours (and density in  RGB) Editing will spill over some of the contents of one bucket into the next one, contaminating  the content. Obviously the amount of contamination will be much more in the 8-bucket row - and irreversible.

[andybarton]

Have a read of this.

 

8-bit jpeg / 16 bit RAW is the difference between having 256 shades of red/green/blue (each) to play with or 65,536 shades of red/green/blue (each).

 

http://www.outdoorphotoacademy.com/8-bit-vs-16-bit/

[Guest Nowhereman]

Sharpening is not the only issue in deciding whether to use JPG vs RAW. With the M10, as with the other Leica-M digital cameras, I have never had a reason for shooting JPG: since the Leica JPGs are not of much interest in terms of the look I'm seeking, it's much more preferable to use the DNG files and post-process them in 16-bits, in my case, with Lightroom.

Now, I also have a Ricoh GR III, which has several interesting JPG settings, of which two (Hi-Contrast B&W and Positive Film) have a look that interest me. So, on this camera, I shoot JPG+RAW and often use the Hi-Contrast B&W setting. Interestingly, I have found several advantages in using this setting: sometimes the JPG image has a higher contrast than what I would typically end up in shooting just a DNG, in that I might not go as far into high-contrast on my own — and often find I like the Hi-Contrast B&W more. Also, when I started using this JPG setting, after making minor adjustments to the JPG to produce a final imaged, I then tried to reproduce this look by processing the DNG, and often found it difficult to produce an image that I liked as much. For these reasons, I find it worthwhile to shoot JPG+DNG with the Ricoh GR III.
________________________
Frog Leaping photobook

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sharpening  is indeed a  function of edge contrast. However you must make a distinction between creating optical acuity on the screen  and creating controlled halos for printing (similar to the edge effect in film photography) Lightroom is geared towards the latter. To get  optimal sharpening to display on your screen the use of either sophisticated Photoshop methods (like creating a high-pass layer, or using the L channel in LAB and three-step sharpening) or a dedicated  sharpening program, like Topaz Sharpen AI or  Franzis Sharpen Project is needed . In-camera JPG sharpening is more slanted to use on a monitor.

Recommended reading on the subject is Fraser and Schewe: real World Sharpening, despite this being a somewhat older book.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom/dp/0321637550

Thanks for the information and  the link.

So in theory although the in camera jpeg looks minutely sharper on my screen it may well not be as good as my raw edit if i was to have a print made for my living room?

 

[andybarton]

You definitely want to work in 16-bit and export to TIFF if you want to put a print on your wall, if that option is open to you.

[pgk]

Sharpening is the last adjustment to make and the amount depends on the output requirements. A file to be viewed at screen size should be down sized to the screen resolution and then sharpened to optimise it for screen viewing. An image to be printed should be sized to the print output size and then sharpened to work best when printed. There is no one size fits all when it comes to sharpening a file. Sharpening depends on use and consequently output size. Experience helps and there is only one way to get it.

[jaapv]

54 minutes ago, pgk said:

Sharpening is the last adjustment to make and the amount depends on the output requirements

Yes and no. Basically we have three types  of sharpening:  input sharpening which is the maximum  amount on opening the image without creating artifacts  which could  impair further processing, creative  sharpening  during processing for  details, and output sharpening   to  optimize for the intended output (print size,  monitor, etc.)

[pgk]

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes and no. Basically we have three types  of sharpening...

We? You may have😉. I 'm not so sure about this 'creative' sharpening lark.

[jaapv]

Read the book I linked to. It is standard sharpening  theory.

Creative sharpening is quite a simple concept. You will need to sharpen for print, but you want to retain your OOF areas, so you pre-sharpen your subject locally and pull back on the output sharpening.

[Guest]

Think i have worked out an error i was making.

I made my own little pre-set based mostly on sharpening for my raw files but was inadvertently  applying them to my JPEGS which had already been sharpened in camera.

Once i compared the manually sharpened raw image with the JPEG without added sharpening the edited raw image has a very slight edge in terms of sharpness.

I imagine the more trained eye would have noticed evidence of over sharpening on my JPEG images.

Think i am back on track now,its not so easy when you turn digital in 2014 when i was 55 years old,not for me anyway.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pgk]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

Read the book I linked to. It is standard sharpening  theory.

Creative sharpening is quite a simple concept. You will need to sharpen for print, but you want to retain your OOF areas, so you pre-sharpen your subject locally and pull back on the output sharpening.

I remember Frasers books. Thing is that I've never felt the need for a third step, even on big prints.

[250swb]

7 hours ago, steve 1959 said:

Basically i am importing a jpeg sharpened in camera into lightroom along with the raw file from the same image.

But when i get my raw file how i want it in lightroom it still does not look quite as sharp as the in camera jpeg does.

Must try harder i suppose?

Well duh, the in camera JPEG has been sharpened to heck and back and the RAW file hasn't. That aside the RAW file is potentially a much larger file, so it needs a different Sharpening regime anyway.