Just can't get them sharp!

EMA747

EMA747

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,070
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
I am trying a new workflow alongside my new Canon 1DmkIV but I just can't get the images sharp. What I am doing is this:

RAW editing plus sharpen in LR3
Export to flickr via the built in function and adding sharpen for screen set to low. Exporting to fit into 1000px length or width.

They just don't look that sharp to me. Check them out here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysolaini/ (all the ones on page 1 are what I am on about).

I used to export the RAWs to CS5 and crop to 1000px THEN add USM sharpening. That worked ok on my 7D but was a LOT more work when editing 100s of shots.
 
Did a quick sharpen in CS5 and it comes out fine, I can only guess something in the workflow is going wrong - perhaps when reducing to 1000px it's softening it?

I don't really like sharpening in LR3 - not sure why, I just prefer photoshop for it!
 
Sorry for jumping in guys, but was does Sharpen do exactly?
 
Last edited:
Just had a look at those and can see what you mean.
I don't use Flickr, but you seem to have a step in the workflow "sharpen for screen set to low"
I see many threads with people saying Flickr seems to alter their pics, have you tried that setting at a different level as it seems to suggest a low sharp picture?

I hope you get it sorted you have some great pics there.

Paul
 
I think you need to experiment more.
when you down size from such a large original file to such a small one, you seem to need a large amout of sharpening, as all the final pixels are simply a recalculation of quite a large matrix of pixels, which are simply not sharp any longer.
 
Gigabyte said:
Sorry for jumping in guys, but was does Sharpen do exactly?
Click to expand...

I don't know how to reply to this without appearing sarcastic but it sharpens the image :shrug:

Why is it the most simple questions are often the hardest to answer! lol

I guess you could say that when you look at a photo that looks a little soft, almost as if it's out of focus, then you can use sharpening tools in editing software to make the image look nice and crisp and basically not soft. There's a few different methods which you can use to sharpen, I reckon people find their own favourite.

Pretty much all photos shot in RAW format will require sharpening, however, if you shoot in JPEG then you may not have to do any sharpening depending on what level of sharpening you have your camera set to.

If the image is actually out of focus though, then there's little you can do about it.

Here's a wee example of my Beagle, the one of the left could be one which comes out of the camera and the one on the right has been sharpened.

Can you see the difference? Look around the eyes and the nose area and you should be able to see more detail.

Sharpen%20Example.jpg
 
Just been having a check of the files off my 7D and something strange is happening with the 1DmkIV files by comparison.

When sharpening the 7D RAW files in LR3 they look a lot better as some sharpening is added. With the mkIV RAW files when sharpening is added they go all "smudgy"/"painted" looking and don't really look that much more sharp the just seem to look bad, and the noise iscreases a lot.
 
Have you tried sharpening in DPP? As the MkIV is so new there may be slight issues with the import of the raw files to LR.
 
I also notice a slight difference between my 50D & 1Ds MkII. The 50D being that little more sharper in the RAW. Firstly are the setting the same usually the non series are set even in RAW for some in camera processing, something I didnt know until recently from Canon themselves.

Secondly have you tried ensuring the lens are set in the MkIV as I believe you can tune them for sharpness. Inally before uploading to Flickr have you checked the image on your PC? I suppose the real question is how do they look as your final image on the screen (before reduction) and printing. Post a couple here for us to look at
 
Canon released a tech note when the 1D and 1Ds mk 3's were released. The anti aliasing filter is much stronger on these cameras and need more capture sharpening than was needed required on previous models. I think the same applies to the 1Dmk4.

In Lightroom you need to increase the sharpening up to about 40 or even 50, and give the detail a bit of a boost. I'd leave the Radius at 1 unless you have a good reason to change it. See how those settings work. You will probably need to modify them for your own needs and individual images but these seem to work OK fro me
 
I read about the strong AA fliters. The problem with that is when I push the sharpening it introduces a whole load of noise even at quite low ISO. I then have to take it out with NR which results in all the detail being lost and the images looking worse that it did in the first place!

Here are a few RAW files straight out of the camera. They are not my best ever images but are typical of the conditions I was having to shoot in in Norway. They are the kind of challenging conditions I thought the mkIV was supposed to shine in.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5P0WYDQV

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=06JDB5C2

This one taken is sunnier conditions.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=IBWY504H
 
Have you tried using the Lab method of sharpening?
 
gman said:
Have you tried using the Lab method of sharpening?
Click to expand...
I've not tried that but the strange thing is that using my normal sharpening workflow in LR3 on the 7D files makes them much better but on the mkIV files it doesn't seem to be the case.
 
I think you'll find that Lightroom and ACR sharpen primarily in the Luminance channel.
 
Andy

Just downloaded 504H and found that settings around 50 Sharpening and 37 Detail gave the best results. Didn't see to much noise in the image at this level or sharpness.

Looked at it at 100% & 200% , and I don't think it could go much sharper. Checked some images from my 5D Mk1 and my 1Ds mk3 and I would think the sharpness is between the 2. Bear in mind these are both full frame cameras
 
Thanks Chapper. I'll have a go with those settings.

It would be interesting to see what another mkIV owner thinks to these.
 
Andy
One of the reason I opted for the 1Dslll was I was always unsure if I was getting the maximum out of my lenses. Although the 5D gave excellent results I always thought the images could go a bit sharper. That plus the need to supply larger images for repro made me opt for the 1Ds. The 1Ds is certainly pushing the limit of my lenses and I'm now happy with the sharpness

I wonder if you are seeing the same thing. The image looks sharp,but there arn't enough pixels to give you that ultimate feeling that the image is sharp
 
Chappers said:
Andy
One of the reason I opted for the 1Dslll was I was always unsure if I was getting the maximum out of my lenses. Although the 5D gave excellent results I always thought the images could go a bit sharper. That plus the need to supply larger images for repro made me opt for the 1Ds. The 1Ds is certainly pushing the limit of my lenses and I'm now happy with the sharpness

I wonder if you are seeing the same thing. The image looks sharp,but there arn't enough pixels to give you that ultimate feeling that the image is sharp
Click to expand...
I'm not sure but you might be right. I went from a 400D that I had used for year up to a 7D about last November. I like the 7D but felt the files had too much noise at lower ISO (18mp on 1.6x sensor I guess). I then picked up a used 1DmkIII but didn't think it was all that much better than the 7D except in feel (which is I big thing for me now after using a 1 series, 7D feels wrong in my hand now). Since then I have set my sights on starting out on the long road to trying to earn some money from my photograph and came into some money so decided to buy some good gear, L lenses and the mkIV. The mkIV is nice but having read all the rave reviews and people saying the images are stunning etc and putting down £3.5K on it I am not sure I am getting the bang for buck I was expecting. :thinking:

FF for me is not so good as I do a lot of aviation photography and the 1.3 crop is nice for extra reach. As are the extra mp of the mkIV over the mkIII, one of the major reasons I upgraded.
 
Used to always sharpen using the lab method but found recently using High Pass or Nik Sharpener havent used it.

Tned now to sharpen the areas I require & live soft those areas I dont ie sky.
 
Andy

Had a look at the 7D images and I can see why you think they are sharper. However looking at both 1D and 7D images, the pixel edgers on the 1D look sharper than the 7D ( at 200%) .I wonder if the "softer" edges of the 7D give it an appearance of a sharper image as the pixel edges are softened out . Whilst the 1D is much cleaner and the edges look sharper and the edges stand out and give the appearance of a lower resolution as they are more obvious . OK the 7D is a 10% bigger file but it shouldn't make that much difference.

If you could shoot the same subject on both cameras that might yield a better comparison as it's difficult to compare from different subjects

John C
 
So, if you shoot in RAW you will find that you have to apply some sharpening?
 
John, tomorrow I will have a go at shooting the same thing with both cameras.

Your explanation makes sense. However as I said before I was expecting a BIG difference between the two and I wouldn't have spent £3500 on a mkIV if I'd known that the difference was that small.

Andy S
 
Gigabyte said:
So, if you shoot in RAW you will find that you have to apply some sharpening?
Click to expand...

I reckon pretty much always.

Sharpening should always be the last edit you do as it's typically a destructive process and could adversely affect subsequent editing.
 
Yep, to 100%.
 
EMA747 said:
I am trying a new workflow alongside my new Canon 1DmkIV but I just can't get the images sharp. What I am doing is this:

RAW editing plus sharpen in LR3
Export to flickr via the built in function and adding sharpen for screen set to low. Exporting to fit into 1000px length or width.

They just don't look that sharp to me. Check them out here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysolaini/ (all the ones on page 1 are what I am on about).

I used to export the RAWs to CS5 and crop to 1000px THEN add USM sharpening. That worked ok on my 7D but was a LOT more work when editing 100s of shots.
Click to expand...

If it's the Operation Gunnerside images you mean, then there's very little wrong with them that I can see, and I think you're fretting over nothing at all. Any problems you may be having are almost certainly down to how you sharpen after downsizing, and that will be an issue with any camera regradless of what format you shoot in.

No matter how good your technique, some images (at full size) will always be sharper than others, which is why sharpening is something that needs to be done on a per-shot basis if you want the best results.
 
Andy, you seem to pp the images, then sharpen them, then resize to 1000 pixels and resharpen at low setting for screen.
I have always been told that you should pp, resize to whatever, then sharpen at that size. Images sharpened at full size then reduced in size generally look worse, as do images that are sharpened more than once during your workflow.
Give it a try, pp an image, save a copy large and sharpen. Then save another copy of your pp'd image after resizing to 1000 pixels, and sharpen at that size.
I hope that helps, certainly worth a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top