Another RAW question

TVRTim

TVRTim

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,012
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
I've read (and it may not be so) that raw files are not as sharp as Jpegs when viewed without any PP work, is this because the camera actually adds some sharpening to the jpeg file ??

I had assumed that as long as the image was focussed properly then it would be sharp anyway. I remain slightly confused.
 
in the camera menu on my d700 you can adjust the amount of sharpening given to a jpeg file so depending what settings you have for jpeg it will be sharper than raw hth mike.
 
TVRTim said:
I've read (and it may not be so) that raw files are not as sharp as Jpegs when viewed without any PP work, is this because the camera actually adds some sharpening to the jpeg file ??

I had assumed that as long as the image was focussed properly then it would be sharp anyway. I remain slightly confused.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that, with a few exceptions, DSLR's have an anti-aliasing filter (to counter moire) in front of the sensor and this introduces a small amount of unsharpness. Hence that reason that sharpening is applied to the jpeg in camera or in processing afterwards.
 
Just read a "beginners guide to raw" contained in a link in this section, very good, thank you all for your answers and help.
 
In fact most digital cameras have a number of different "themes" which can be applied to JPEGs in camera such as Landscape, portrait, natural, faithful etc.

All of these apply different amounts of sharpening, saturation, hue, colour balance, etc according to what the manufacturer feels is most appropriate for that theme.

And many RAW converters will apply these settings to the RAW images, although they can be altered as required since RAW is not an image but more of a data file which defines the image.

So a RAW file can easily be reset but the settings applied to the JPEG file are fixed to whatever theme has been selected.
 
petersmart said:
In fact most digital cameras have a number of different "themes" which can be applied to JPEGs in camera such as Landscape, portrait, natural, faithful etc.

All of these apply different amounts of sharpening, saturation, hue, colour balance, etc according to what the manufacturer feels is most appropriate for that theme.

And many RAW converters will apply these settings to the RAW images, although they can be altered as required since RAW is not an image but more of a data file which defines the image.
Click to expand...

Most software makes a guess at what settings were used in the camera, WB, Picture Styles/Controls, the manufacturers own software is the only one that can render the RAW file correctly as the Jpeg would have been out of the camera afaik. It that is what you want. ;)
 
If I go back to what I said in my original post "I had assumed that as long as the image was focussed properly then it would be sharp anyway. I remain slightly confused." in the old days of film (which I still shoot) the only way an image was ever going to be sharp was if it was focussed correctly, and no amount of work in the darkroom would ever correct an out of focus negative, yes ??

So based on the premise that the image is focussed properly/accurately in the first instance then why would a raw image not be sharp without any pp ?? I'm assuming that it should be, and because some of my images are not sharp then I suppose the fault must lie with either me or the camera itself.

I think I may be in danger of thinking about this to much :lol:
 
Due to the regular layout of the pixels there can be a problem with aliasing, this causes funny lines and colours on details with fine lines on them. You may be able to remember the funny lines that you got on news reader's shirts and ties if they were striped :)
To prevent this digital cameras have an Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor, unfortunately the AA filter also reduces the sharpness of the picture so it has to be re-sharpened in processing, either in camera or in PP.
 
Suvv said:
Due to the regular layout of the pixels there can be a problem with aliasing, this causes funny lines and colours on details with fine lines on them. You may be able to remember the funny lines that you got on news reader's shirts and ties if they were striped :)
To prevent this digital cameras have an Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor, unfortunately the AA filter also reduces the sharpness of the picture so it has to be re-sharpened in processing, either in camera or in PP.
Click to expand...

Yes, I alluded to that in post #5.
 
arclight said:
Yes, I alluded to that in post #5.
Click to expand...
Yes, I must learn to type faster, your post appeared while I was tapping one-handed and one-fingered on this keyboard that does not even have the letters arranged alphabetically :lol:
 
Due to the regular layout of the pixels there can be a problem with aliasing, this causes funny lines and colours on details with fine lines on them. You may be able to remember the funny lines that you got on news reader's shirts and ties if they were striped :)
To prevent this digital cameras have an Anti-Aliasing filter in front of the sensor, unfortunately the AA filter also reduces the sharpness of the picture so it has to be re-sharpened in processing, either in camera or in PP.

arclight said:
Yes, I alluded to that in post #5.
Click to expand...

Both correct but.......................

If you look in the above post's I did say that I have a "Fuji X-E1" which does not have an AA filter and thus avoids that problem ??
 
Both correct but.......................

If you look in the above post's I did say that I have a "Fuji X-E1" which does not have an AA filter and thus avoids that problem ??[/quote]
:bonk:
 
Suvv said:
Yes, I must learn to type faster, your post appeared while I was tapping one-handed and one-fingered on this keyboard that does not even have the letters arranged alphabetically :lol:
Click to expand...

Not a problem, squire. :thumbs:
 
Really interesting, Ive never thought about this before, do you apply higher sharpening to raw images usually?
 
its all in the eye of the processor (us) i had a nikon d7100 also without a anti/aliasing filter ,when either of the two bodies i had was working correctly i actually hated the RAW files they churned out .they somehow lacked smoothness if thats the word ,and seemed to my eye to appear jagged .cant really explain it but the more you cropped in the worse it got ,both cameras went tits up electronically when they reached a shutter count of circa 3000+ shots and nikon is now consigned to history .lifes to short to mess about
so is the removal of the AA filter a good idea or not .cant really say but it didn't work for me .i have a feeling it would have been great with the j/pegs but never got to that stage of testing
 
TVRTim said:
If I go back to what I said in my original post "I had assumed that as long as the image was focussed properly then it would be sharp anyway. I remain slightly confused." in the old days of film (which I still shoot) the only way an image was ever going to be sharp was if it was focussed correctly, and no amount of work in the darkroom would ever correct an out of focus negative, yes ??

So based on the premise that the image is focussed properly/accurately in the first instance then why would a raw image not be sharp without any pp ?? I'm assuming that it should be, and because some of my images are not sharp then I suppose the fault must lie with either me or the camera itself.

I think I may be in danger of thinking about this to much :lol:
Click to expand...
There's a difference between 'in focus' and 'sharp' though.
You can shoot with a low grade lens and produce an image which is 'in focus' perfectly, but it'll not be as sharp as an image shot on a sharper lens. Lens sharpness is measured by the resolution it is capable of resolving with some influence from the actual contrast it produces.

Edge sharpness is what leads our brains to see 'sharp' so a high contrast high resolution image will appear 'sharper' than a low contrast low resolution one. So shooting a low contrast subject on a dull day with a kit zoom from the 80's wide open can give you an image that's in focus perfectly, but will never appear to be 'sharp'.

Does that make sense? There'll be lots more technical explanations on the web, but the gist is you need to detatch 'sharp' from 'in focus', they're only loosely related. The point where an image is focussed perfectly will always be the sharpest part of that image, but it could be too sharp or not sharp enough, depending on lots of other factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top