Picture Style sharpness vs DPP post-treatment ??

[Tabazan]

Hello to all,


A general question about sharpness setup in Picture Styles options :


Considering the lens AF calibration is right (and according to you) is it better to tweak sharpness in a custom Picture Style (say 6 or 7), than let it to 0 to 1-2 and rework sharpness in DPP ?


I suppose the answer is not the same for RAW or JPG ...


I usually setup a custom PS to 6 or 7 in sharpness but ... should a rightly balanced camera not be already tack sharp at this level. Or is PS as critical as the micro-adjustment used for the lenses ?


Thanks for your suggestions

[Oren]

For RAW it really doesn't matter what you set in your camera, as you can set it later in DPP to w/e you want.


For JPEG, if you need to set it to 6-7 for say more than 1% of your pictures then something is wrong here: with your lens, camera, you or any combination of these.


I hope that's what you asked and that it helps.

[neuroanatomist]

For RAW, it is basically irrelevant - except that if you use DPP for your RAW conversions, whatever Picture Style settings you choose in the camera are written in the metadata and will be 'pre-applied' to the RAW file when you open it in DPP (but not in any other RAW conversion software). However, you can change those settings without an IQ penalty, for the RAW file.


For JPG files, it matters much more since subsequent edits degrade IQ.


Sharpness is a user preference, but many people find oversharpening to be less than ideal. The reason for that is noise. Think of noise and sharpness as one 'slider' - if you increase sharpness you add noise, and conversely, if you perform noise reduction you reduce sharpness.


Some sharpening is necessary - the anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor (needed to reduce/eliminate moire) reduces the sharpness of an image.


The 'Standard' picture style uses a 'middle' setting of 3. Landscape bumps it up to 4, whereas Portrait drops it to 2 for a 'softer, more flattering' look. The Faithful and Neutral settings leave it at 0 because those settings are intended for people who will be processing RAW images and want a 'clean slate' to start. Some sharpening is necessary in that case.


Personally, I would consider a sharpness of 6 or 7 to be oversharpened. You shouldn't need that much sharpening. But the lens and settings matter - even if the focus is tack-sharp, if you're shooting with a lower-end lens (e.g. kit lens or a cheap zoom) at its widest aperture, you will get soft images, usually soft beyond the ability of sharpening to rescue them without causing collateral damage to the image. Your solution in that case is to stop down the lens (or get a better lens - but even some of the best lenses are a bit soft wide open).

[Tabazan]

I completely agree : +6 or 7 seems a lot ... that's why I write this post.


What's more, considering I own a 5D II and a 7D, with L lenses, which is quite good gear ...


Even though sharpness is not an end in itself, this bad habit comes from the impression of not getting an overall sharpness impression at 30 or 50 (not a 100% peeping).


Sure, I've made some tests on tripod with mirror locked, stopped down a bit or more and so on, but I feel something is wrong. Following your explaination I will do some more tests anyway.


That's why I wondered if some sharpness tuning on the cam is a good idea and if it's not worsening things.


Second : might it be the cams ? I know sending back the lenses for calibration is usual ... but the cams ?

[neuroanatomist]

Second : might it be the cams ? I know sending back the lenses for calibration is usual ... but the cams ?

Sending lenses in for AF calibration used to be usual (often requiring the body to be sent as well) - but it's made mostly unnecessary with AF microadjustment (which both of your cameras offer).


I'm not sure how, other than AF, a camera could be 'tuned for sharpness' (in hardware terms). It's true that different cameras have different strengths of anti-aliasing filters, and thus require different amounts of sharpening (the 7D will require more than the 5DII, for example).


Even if it's a problem with a camera, it seems unlikely that you'd be having that problem with both of them. I suppose it may partly depend on how you define a 'sharp' image - it means different things to different people.

What's more, considering I own a 5D II and a 7D, with L lenses, which is quite good gear ...

As I said above, it also depends on how your using your lenses. The red L is not a guarantee of tack-sharpness at all settings. Want an example? Consider the EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 - a cheap consumer zoom that Bryan calls, "flawed,"and states that, "image quality delivered by this lens is ... well ... poor." Also consider the EF 50mm f/1.2L, a professional L-series prime lens that offers, "the best image quality ... from f/1.2 to f/2 (at 50mm). Now, compare the 50mm f/1.2L at f/1.2 to the 28-200mm zoom at 135mm f/8. Which delivers more sharpness - the 'good gear' or the cheap piece of c-r-a-p?

[Colin]

I always shoot raw, and set the sharpness for the Raw unfurling usually 1-2. It's rare to need to go higher than 3, after which it starts emphasizing the pixel structure, regardless of the noise level. I might go higher if I have to do a lot of noise filtering, to try to pre-compensate.


But, usually, 2 is plenty sharp at 100% crop, assuming I'm looking at something that's actually in the focal plane.

[Tabazan]

it seems unlikely that you'd be having that problem with both of them

True. Or it would be real bad luck [8-)]

it may partly depend on how you define a 'sharp' image

Yes, that's very subjective. And it depends also of the skill to get it. But whatever the level, it's still a comparison between various cams and lenses for the same photographer level.

Which delivers more sharpness - the 'good gear' or the cheap piece of c-r-a-p?

I agree. I used to own an EF 55-250 which delivered better images than the 70-200 F4 IS I bought later to replace it (in spite of all reviews and advises) ... now sold.


I also had a 70-200 f2.8 IS which image quality was far from the general opinion of "best zoom around" (in the same range, the Sigma 120-400, re-calibrated at Sigma, was better ... which technically seems , well ... strange).


Which lead me to think that there's something else going wrong. With me taking pics, and on my cams, the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS, the 300mm f4 IS are fine but not stunning while they have excellent (and credible) reviews, and I get the best results with 24-105, 100mm f2.8 IS L and ... a Sigma 120-400 (re-calibrated by Sigma). [:S]


I've made some shots today with the 300mm f4 attached with PS at 0 and 6, and 6 is still the most convincing (but according to me an abnormal setup)

[Oren]

As said, it seems unlikely that both cameras and ALL your L lenses are that bad.


It's either the photographer - you, or your LCD screen. My best guess would be your LCD, check it out.

[neuroanatomist]

I used to own an EF (-S, presumably) 55-250 which delivered better images than the 70-200 F4 IS I bought later to replace it

[:O]