Can you tell me why

Ste Manns

Ste Manns

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,348
Edit My Images
Yes
If I view a RAW image in DPP it's sharp, if I view the exact same image in Photoshop its soft? If I sharpen an image in DPP and then transfer it to Photoshop, it goes soft again.

What's going on? :bang:
 
Dunno what's happening, mate, but I never sharpen RAW images. Sharpening should be the very last step once you've converted to jpeg.
 
For the record, same thing in Capture NX (Nikon). Camera has built in styles, contrast, saturation, sharpness, dynamic lighting etc. Just like it would process into a jpeg. Photoshop ignores it all, your native camera softeware displays a RAW like the processed JPEG.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Photoshop cannot read your camera's settings, DPP can :)
Click to expand...

I'm talking about RAW here Gary - there are no camera settings to read.:shrug:

Dean - I'm talking about straight out of the camera - if I open the RAW in DPP its sharp, if I open it in PS its soft. That's before I do anything. In PS the image is just about unusable its so soft, yet the exact same image is nice and sharp in DPP before I even touch it.

The upshot is, I can't seem to get sharp shots at all out of PS no matter what I do (I've tried all sorts - sharpening before, after, twice, the lot. Doesn't make any difference.)

If I develop a shot in DPP as advised on a website I was reading earlier, and transfer straight to PS before I output to JPEG it goes soft when it opens in PS. If I save it in DPP (still as a RAW) and open that in PS it still goes soft. I'm getting fed up :bang:
 
OK this applies to Capture NX, but I am 99.9% certain the same goes with DPP.

Your camera will have various menu's designed to enhance the photos in camera. The settings which make your JPEGS look different to your RAW files, in otherwords, processed by the camera. This difference between JPEG and RAW however is ONLY apparent in NON native apps...

So, let's say you shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time. Take the photo. Open the JPEG and RAW file in Photoshop, and you will see a WORLD of difference. The raw will be dull, soft, and look flat.

Now, keep the JPEG in Photoshop open, and then open the RAW file in DPP. It should look identical to the Photoshop JPEG.

This is exactly how I manage to get my Studio shoots Processing Free whilst retaining RAW editibility.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
OK this applies to Capture NX, but I am 99.9% certain the same goes with DPP.

Your camera will have various menu's designed to enhance the photos in camera. The settings which make your JPEGS look different to your RAW files, in otherwords, processed by the camera. This difference between JPEG and RAW however is ONLY apparent in NON native apps...

So, let's say you shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time. Take the photo. Open the JPEG and RAW file in Photoshop, and you will see a WORLD of difference. The raw will be dull, soft, and look flat.

Now, keep the JPEG in Photoshop open, and then open the RAW file in DPP. It should look identical to the Photoshop JPEG.

This is exactly how I manage to get my Studio shoots Processing Free whilst retaining RAW editibility.

Gary.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh.. Now that makes sense. Thanks Gary.

So - how do I get a shot to look good in PS like DP can? Its that bit I'm struggling with. PS sharpening looks false and frankly, crap, whenever and however I do it.
 
Ste Manns said:
Ahhhhh.. Now that makes sense. Thanks Gary.

So - how do I get a shot to look good in PS like DP can? Its that bit I'm struggling with. PS sharpening looks false and frankly, crap, whenever and however I do it.
Click to expand...

IMO? You can't :D

I would NEVER use anything other than Capture NX for processing, especially Landscapes. It renders Nikon files like no other software, it's stunning.

Gary.
 
How do you sharpen, Ste? You should have no trouble at all in PS. Do you lab sharpen? Either that or high pass sharpening should do the job. Send me over a file you're having trouble with.
 
I've tried various methods up till now - to be honest I thought it was just me who wasn't getting focus, but having seen DPP render perfectly focused shots I'm wondering what's going on!

I've 'retuned' my diopter adjustment several times, I've used auto lenses, there is no difference. So I began suspecting I've got bad lenses, but they can't all be bad!

High pass sharpening sometimes works ok - depends on the image. I must confess I haven't tried Lab sharpening but will soon. Unsharp mask and the other sharpening filters just look terrible as to get it to look sharp I'm having to apply it to the max. What I couldn't get my head round is the way the same shot will look lovely and pin sharp as soon as I open it in DPP before I apply any sharpening at all. Thanks to Gary I understand why now but it still doesn't seem right - how come in camera sharpening works better than Photoshop?

Another thing - if it's best to sharpen last (and I don't doubt you) why is the sharpening slider in Camera Raw, you need to use that right at the beginning. Or do you all ignore that, and do it last using one of the other methods?

The other thing I can't get my head round. If I convert the RAW with DPP using its settings, and then export it to PS it goes soft again. (obviously the in camera settings are there still but not readable by PS) so, that image will only appear sharp if I open it in Canons software? I'd need to export it as a JPEG to 'keep' the sharpness but that's bad, I know you're only supposed to convert to JPEG at the end after your editing has been done. Or do I edit a soft image, save it and then open it in DPP last of all to convert to JPEG?

It's driving me nuts this :gag:
 
You don't have to export as a jpg, you can export as a tiff which is bigger but lossless so you can save many times and it wont lose quality.

I cant understand why there are two lots of developing settings in DPP, one for RAW and one for srgb.
If I open a RAW do I just use the RAW ones and that is all?
(sorry to ask a question within your question!!) :)
 
Ste Manns said:
If I convert the RAW with DPP using its settings, and then export it to PS it goes soft again.

Yup, nothing other than DPP will ever show you a raw file with in camera settings.

(obviously the in camera settings are there still but not readable by PS) so, that image will only appear sharp if I open it in Canons software?

Yes, unless you can somehow replicate it in other software such as Photoshop.

I'd need to export it as a JPEG to 'keep' the sharpness but that's bad, I know you're only supposed to convert to JPEG at the end after your editing has been done. Or do I edit a soft image, save it and then open it in DPP last of all to convert to JPEG?

No, I think DPP will ignore the edits that OTHER programs make, catch 22 :D This is why I perservered with Nikon's native software, lovely photos out of camera - and before anyone says it's letting the camera make all the decisions, I built my own custom styles :D

It's driving me nuts this :gag:

Learn to work within those boundaries, its well worth the effort.
Click to expand...
 
It's ok Janice, ask away. The more perspectives I get on this the better!

I can't answer your specific question as I only use RAW myself. This problem has been niggling me fo ages, but because I thought it was me doing something wrong, and then because I thought it was my focusing at fault I never asked the question. But hundreds of images later and still no improvement I began to wonder what was going on. I did some digging and found something about DPP (which I hadn't used up till now) sharpening being 'superior' (well I don't know how true that is) so I gave it a go after I had some disappointing results from a trip out on Sunday. To my surprise those disappointing shots mostly all look lovely in DPP, hence my post.

Now, I'm very happy with my photographing skills as it were - nothing wrong there, but I am a total noob from the moment I've downloaded the card. I need to get my head round this if I'm ever going to take my photography further. That, or go back to film :D
 
Ste Manns said:
I need to get my head round this if I'm ever going to take my photography further. That, or go back to film :D
Click to expand...

I have been opening a raw file in DPP and making sure the sharpening is at its lowest and opening the same Raw in Photoshop (ie, ACR Camera Raw) and taking the sharpening right down in that and shots are identical in my eyes.

Im wondering if your DPP default has the sharpening slider half way along when you open a new shot??? :shrug:

Also are you viewing at the same size in both apps? a smaller shot will look sharper than if it is larger.... try 50% in each.
 
As Gary says, DPP will be reading the in camera settings - I haven't messed with those, they're at default.

What I don't understand, when I open the file in PS and I sharpen it, it never looks as sharp as if I just open it in DPP, no matter what I do with it. That's what I don't get. Surely if I open in PS, sharpen and save, that shot should then look nice and sharp. However sharpening in PS (whichever way I do it) never looks as good as a straight out of camera shot opened in DPP.

As I said, I thought this was just me missing focus all the time (am I that bad :'( ) or is something else going on? If I was missing focus, surely the shot would also look rubbish in DPP, regardless of the settings it can read. An OOF shot should still be OOF regardless of the software I use, but this isn't born out when I look at the files.

I am therefore concluding that I am doing something wrong in my workflow, and it isn't just me who's a rubbish photographer with bad eyesight (which is what I was thinking) and it's not my diopter setting (when using MF lenses) as the same thing happens when I use known sharp AF lenses.
 
All Canon raw files (and any files from a camera with an antialiasing filter) need a degree of sharpening in order to compensate for the softening effects of the antialiasing filter. There are basically three stages of sharpening that can be applied during processing of a file, or you can wait till the end of all your adjustments and sharpen as the last step before saving. The three stages are....

1. "Capture" sharpening, which is quite modest in effect and intended only to resharpen the image a little in order to overcome the softening of the AA filter;

2. "Creative" sharpening, where you choose to selectively sharpen particular features, such as eyes, while leaving other areas, such as skin, untouched, or even softened;

3. "Output" sharpening, which is required following a downsizing of an image in order to restore edge contrast to edges that disappeared s a result of the downsizing.

If you use software like Photoshop then you can perform this three-stage sharpening. If you use Lightroom then you can have two sharpening stages. If you use DPP then there is only one stage available and DPP will perform the sharpening when it decides to.

There's an enlightening thread over on POTN about sharpening....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=466333

and a Canon tutorial/walkthrough on sharpening here....

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=287&fromTips=1

FWIW, although I no longer use DPP for processing my raw files, I always used to find that setting sharpening to 3 (or even 2) gave me good results on a file that was sharp to begin with. With a file that was a bit soft (OOF or blurred) then increasing sharpening to 4, 5 or 6 might help improve it. Beyond that it was a bit like flogging a dead horse. Sharpening controls are intended to enhance sharp images, not fix soft ones.

I like my photos to look naturally sharp, like the things would look in real life, not oversharpened, with ghastly halos, as some people seem to prefer.

It's also worth noting that when you view files it can often matter what zoom level you use. 100% zoom is very punishing and will reveal weaknesses in camera performance, lens performance and photographer skills, or the limitations imposed by physics, such as diffraction. If you are shooting things that move, with a long lens, such as BIF, then you will probably need high shutter speeds in order to achieve pixel level perfection. Viewing files at 50% or 33% is usually equivalent to a large print size, but also a bit more realistic in terms of meeting expectations. Viewing at these magnifications should allow the software to do a good job of rendering the images sharply, assuming they were sharp to begin with. You may well find that viewing at other arbitrary magnifications, which are not at 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 size that the software can not do as a good a job of making a sharp version of the image, so be careful not to assume the worst when you view at "fit to screen" size. It might be the software that is the problem, not the image.
 
Problem sorted!

Or more accurately - problem with certain lenses identified.

I honestly thought all my lenses were fine and it was my workflow at fault, however having spent a good two hours last night 'faffing', I have come to the conclusion that some of my lenses are way off :D and when it comes to photoshop sharpening, well you can't polish a t***.

DPP was applying a lot of sharpening without me realising it, hence the images looking so much better (until I zoom right in, when you can tell the sharpening is overdone)

So, after testing some of my MF lenses (which are supposed to be sharp) against a very sharp AF lens I now know that some of them are way way softer than others. I've been struggling with this for ages, it may sound obvious to some but the lenses in question are supposed to be sharp, in camera everything looks hunky dory (as does previews in DPP) but when you look in PS the truth becomes clear. Because of the conflicting results I put it down to either incorrect diopter adjustment (adjusted and re adjusted, almost to death) or something funny going on post download.

So, thankyou guys for your kind offerings of advice and support - you've helped me remove the blinkers and smell some of that rosey type stuff. Just need to save up now for some decent glass.
 
Is the problem that the lenses aren't sharp, or simply that the focus calibration is off? With the 50D you have the opportunity to adjust the focusing.
 
What lenses are causing the problem, Ste? Bloody glad you've got it figured out too cos it was making no sense to me.
 
tdodd said:
Is the problem that the lenses aren't sharp, or simply that the focus calibration is off? With the 50D you have the opportunity to adjust the focusing.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question, especially if it's either of the lenses you go from me cos I know they're sharp with my camera.
 
Well there's also the possibility of diffraction softening if stopping down too far and pixel peeping, or blur/shake if the shutter speed is too slow for the conditions. There really are a few possibilities, but without knowing the circumstances it's kind of hard to judge from a distance.

To eliminate some concerns the best thing would be to shoot from a stable tripod in good light, with the lens wide open, and using Live AF for focusing on a flat, contrasty, static subject. If the results are still soft then it would suggest a duff lens. If they are good then there is some other problem. By switching to Quick AF and trying again, few times, it might reveal a problem with AF calibration. If the results are still good then the finger of blame points to technique.

Ooh, one more thing - a filter, especially a cheap one, can do serious harm to IQ, and some lenses are more susceptible than others. If there is a filter fitted then take it off, otherwise all bets are off. Sample thread - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=437387.
 
I'm afraid the 35-80 is giving me soft results yeah, but also the 200mm f3.5 I have. The Helios 58mm f2 and Carl Zeiss 135mm f3.5 are both tack sharp.

Strangely, the Chinon 35mm I have is also quite sharp (it's supposed to be terrible but clearly I have a good one)

I haven't tested the other Tamron yet in the same way, or some of the other lenses.

To be honest, having thought about it a bit, I don't think the lenses are at fault as such, but maybe the higher resolution of the 50D has something to do with it?

I know it's not the diopter as I've adjusted it, and tested it with a known sharp lens (60mm EF-S f2.8 Macro) during the 'faffing' session last night.
 
david1701 said:
tbh those are 2 crap lens and 2 very good lenses (I have 2x 50/2s like em that much)
Click to expand...


The Tamron 35-80 SP is a legendary lens - probably the best zoom lens in its class ever made. Just not that sharp on a 50D! In macro mode I am getting razor sharp results with it though :thinking: I took a shot of a feather up close the other day, handheld wide open (very narrow DOF) and it was very sharp, but in normal use I can't get it to give me good results.

The 200 however, is pretty rubbish I agree...
 
OK, so you're using manual focus lenses and then pixel peeping at 100%. How are you ensuring the focus is accurate? Are you using Live View or only focusing through the viewfinder? Do you have a split prism focus screen in the camera, to facilitate accurate focusing, or are you having to guess that the focus is precisely correct by making do with the supplied focus screen? You can't be sure that something which looks sharp through the viewfinder will stay looking sharp when viewed on screen at 100%, yielding a virtual image of perhaps 40" across, depending upon your monitor size and resolution. If you were shooting 35mm film, would you blow it up to a 60" print before judging sharpness from 12-18" away? That's basically what you are doing when pixel peeping a 50D file at 100%.

As for dioptre adjustment, the best thing to do is to look at a plain subject, such as the sky, and then adjust until the focus point squares look sharp.
 
tdodd said:
OK, so you're using manual focus lenses and then pixel peeping at 100%. How are you ensuring the focus is accurate? Are you using Live View or only focusing through the viewfinder? Do you have a split prism focus screen in the camera, to facilitate accurate focusing, or are you having to guess that the focus is precisely correct by making do with the supplied focus screen? You can't be sure that something which looks sharp through the viewfinder will stay looking sharp when viewed on screen at 100%, yielding a virtual image of perhaps 40" across, depending upon your monitor size and resolution. If you were shooting 35mm film, would you blow it up to a 60" print before judging sharpness from 12-18" away? That's basically what you are doing when pixel peeping a 50D file at 100%.

As for dioptre adjustment, the best thing to do is to look at a plain subject, such as the sky, and then adjust until the focus point squares look sharp.
Click to expand...

You're confusing me :thinking:

I'm not pixel peeping - I haven't blown any image up to 100%, just using the standard preview in DPP and PS - 25%.

I've adjusted the diopter till my eyes hurt. I've used liveview at full magnification with the aid of a tripod and remote release, used fast shutterspeeds and alsorts of apertures. I can get tack sharp images using other MF lenses using exactly the same methods.
 
Mmm, that's odd, Ste. Ignoring David's silly comments about things he doesn't seem to understand I am surprised at your results with the 35-80 cos I've used that lens in all sorts of conditions with good results.
 
OK, sorry, just winging it based on limited information. If your images are not looking sharp at 25% viewing then there is something wrong somewhere. That would be equivalent to shooting with a 1 megapixel camera, so the 50D's resolution is not the issue. Diagnosis from a distance is not easy.

Can you upload a RAW file somewhere and then maybe others can take a look and see if they see a reason for a problem?
 
tdodd said:
Is the problem that the lenses aren't sharp, or simply that the focus calibration is off? With the 50D you have the opportunity to adjust the focusing.
Click to expand...

I suspect, like my 450D, the autofocus system just sucks.

OP: please try contrast detect focus in live view or manual focus. I'd put my house in it that he will get infinitely better results.
 
The23rdman said:
Mmm, that's odd, Ste. Ignoring David's silly comments about things he doesn't seem to understand I am surprised at your results with the 35-80 cos I've used that lens in all sorts of conditions with good results.
Click to expand...

Don't doubt it mate - I think its more a case of the 50D's higher resolution 'causing' the problem maybe? I've read loads of reviews for this lens and they're all good. This is why I asked about PP sharpening, and why DPP gives me sharp images and Photoshop doesn't. I also suspected my technique/diopter but results from other lenses don't bear this out. If I do the same thing with say the Carl Zeiss I don't have a problem.

I'm still happy with the lenses though - I just know I have to use DPP for shots taken with these lenses - the results I get from that program are acceptable. :thumbs:
 
Ste Manns said:
Don't doubt it mate - I think its more a case of the 50D's higher resolution 'causing' the problem maybe?
Click to expand...

No. The resolution won't be a "problem" unless you are pixel peeping. That's what had me confused with your earlier posts. If you view a 50D file at 50% that gives you a file of only approx 4 megapixels - the fact that you started out with 15 MP will mean diddly squat when you downsize that much. If you view at only 25% then you will have shrunk the file down to just 1 MP.

Seriously, post up a raw original, if you don't mind, and let's see what others can do with it with the tool of their choice other than DPP. I don't use Photoshop so it will have to be Lightroom for me. I'm quite sure that if the file is OK to begin with then the software will not have a problem turning out decent results.
 
tdodd said:
No. The resolution won't be a "problem" unless you are pixel peeping. That's what had me confused with your earlier posts. If you view a 50D file at 50% that gives you a file of only approx 4 megapixels - the fact that you started out with 15 MP will mean diddly squat when you downsize that much. If you view at only 25% then you will have shrunk the file down to just 1 MP.

Seriously, post up a raw original, if you don't mind, and let's see what others can do with it with the tool of their choice other than DPP. I don't use Photoshop so it will have to be Lightroom for me. I'm quite sure that if the file is OK to begin with then the software will not have a problem turning out decent results.
Click to expand...

Can't just yet - I'm at work, but I'll see what I can do later.

I don't think there's much that can be done - its the file itself that appears to be OOF and DPP has been hiding that. I think this would explain why I can't replicate it in photoshop. I was extremely downhearted because I thought it was me who wasn't focusing correctly but then doing exactly the same I can focus with another MF lens and get seriously sharp results just using the viewfinder. It has to be the lens surely?
 
It does sound that way. You ought to give Live AF try, using Live View, since that assess focus accuracy at the sensor, thus eliminating any errors that can occur due to the different optical paths taken by the light to reach the focus screen and AF sensor vs the sensor itself.
 
I'll come over with my 40d Ste and we'll do some side-by-side comparisons.
 
The23rdman said:
I'll come over with my 40d Ste and we'll do some side-by-side comparisons.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a plan - but we can kill two birds here and do some strobist practicing too, I obviously need it! There's no urgency though mate :thumbs:

Live view af won't work with a MF lens. I've thought about getting some focus confirm chips but heard they aren't all that accurate either. The split prism focus screens are a bit pricey, and I'm not keen on the idea of the viewfinder getting darker, and I've also heard they affect metering.

No doubt there is room for improvement with the diopter and my technique, I'll keep trying to improve it. Tonight I'm going to do some more testing/faffing with different lenses and see what I can find out.
 
Ste Manns said:
Sounds like a plan - but we can kill two birds here and do some strobist practicing too, I obviously need it! There's no urgency though mate :thumbs:

Live view af won't work with a MF lens. I've thought about getting some focus confirm chips but heard they aren't all that accurate either. The split prism focus screens are a bit pricey, and I'm not keen on the idea of the viewfinder getting darker, and I've also heard they affect metering.

No doubt there is room for improvement with the diopter and my technique, I'll keep trying to improve it. Tonight I'm going to do some more testing/faffing with different lenses and see what I can find out.
Click to expand...

Doh! What a nob I am. Of course Live AF won't work with MF lenses! Still, if you can't manually focus to perfection with 10X Live View then it will still reveal the problem to be the lens. You could try shooting with a tethered connection and then using Live View and focusing manually while watching the display on your PC/laptop, which might make focusing a bit easier.
 
Tried that!

Thing is it looks sharp, but the RAW file generated is soft when viewed in photoshop, hence my original question. I tried this last night, with the Tamron MF lens and also the AF lens (efs 60mm macro, known to be sharp) and in liveview both lookthe same when focused. The results from both lenses are not the same though. The MF lens is definately softer. DPP was hiding this by applying loads of sharpening automatically.

Anyway, all this is speculation until I get some more testing done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top