Sharpening in camera or in Photoshop preferable?

My preference is dealing with RAW files from the camera and then making all adjustments in PS where I can control them.

If your camera doesn’t support RAW or you prefer JPG my recommendation again would be to leave as much post processing as possible to PS or PS plug-ins giving you ultimate control of the results.

my two centavos..

Larry
"Burt" wrote in message

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

In article <C0Vzd.11857$ says…

My preference is dealing with RAW files from the camera and then making all adjustments in PS where I can control them.

If your camera doesn’t support RAW or you prefer JPG my recommendation again would be to leave as much post processing as possible to PS or PS plug-ins giving you ultimate control of the results.

my two centavos..

Larry
"Burt" wrote in message

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

I agree with Larry, however, this same question has been bantered about quite a bit in rec.photo.digital. It seems that the concept that most there espouse is to let the camera do "minimal" sharpening, then, as the last step in the post-photo process, do the final sharpening. One claim that many make is that the in-camera USM makes it easier to tell exactly how good the image is.

One caveat though, most of those respondents advocate a set % of USM with set parameters. I would urge all to examine each image, as an individual, and then use USM, not as a set formula, but as is required.

Are we now up to 4 centavos?

Hunt

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

If you do the sarpening, rather than letting the camera do the sharpening, you have more control.

Best bet of all? Use the Unsharp Mask command, not Ultrasharpen. Ultrasharpen is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s built-in Unsharp Mask using "canned" settings.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Well, Tacit maybe you should try something before you open your mouth. The Lite version uses locked settings, the Pro version does not and while it does use Unsharp Mask it goes much farther and does a much better job.

John

"Tacit" wrote in message

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

If you do the sarpening, rather than letting the camera do the sharpening, you
have more control.

Best bet of all? Use the Unsharp Mask command, not Ultrasharpen. Ultrasharpen
is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s built-in Unsharp Mask using "canned" settings.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"John Doe" wrote in
news:xTYzd.14694$:

Well, Tacit maybe you should try something before you open your mouth.

He almost always does. I’m also willing to bet he’s got more experience with image processing than you.

The Lite version uses locked settings, the Pro version does not and while it does use Unsharp Mask it goes much farther and does a much better job.

I’ve never seen the slightest evidence of it, nor indeed any reason to bother with UltraSharpen.

Got any you’d like to offer? Or are we supposed to simply take the word of "John Doe."

"Tacit" wrote in message

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be
preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

If you do the sarpening, rather than letting the camera do the sharpening, you
have more control.

Best bet of all? Use the Unsharp Mask command, not Ultrasharpen. Ultrasharpen
is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s built-in Unsharp Mask using "canned" settings.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Tacit" wrote in message

Ultrasharpen is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s built-in Unsharp Mask
using "canned" settings.

Incorrect this time, Tacit. It uses a lot of other features as well. Not so canned at all.

"John Doe" wrote in message

Aw, now how did Ultrasharpen’s sock puppet get out of my killfile? FIXED!

Ultrasharpen is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s built-in Unsharp Mask
using "canned" settings.

Incorrect this time, Tacit. It uses a lot of other features as well.

Does it? Name them.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

From reading and listening to tutorials the majority opinion is to not do any image processing in the camera, if possible, or the least you are able to do in camera. I think a camera that is able to save in raw format is the best. Then again it depends on how much you want to edit in photoshop. If you are on a time budget or do not care to spend time editing then have the camera to do some of the editing is not a bad option.

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:40:37 -0500, Burt wrote:

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

"Tacit" wrote in message

Ultrasharpen is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s built-in
Unsharp Mask
using "canned" settings.

Incorrect this time, Tacit. It uses a lot of other features as well.

Does it? Name them.

I replied to your mail address.

Not sure what the animosity is with Ultra-Sharpen.
I would think any experienced PS’er would have their own technique for sharpening, but for the quick and dirty sharpening for a file under 3 meg, it works pretty well. I don’t imagine that it would serve any more purpose than that, but it does serve that purpose quite well.

"Tacit" wrote in message

Ultrasharpen is nothing more than an action that uses Photoshop’s

built-in

Unsharp Mask
using "canned" settings.

Incorrect this time, Tacit. It uses a lot of other features as well.

Does it? Name them.

—
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Burt writes:

I am using an olympus c4000z, photoshop, and Ultrasharpen. Would it be preferable to turn sharpening off in the camera and do the work with Ultrasharpen in Photoshop, or to do the sharpening in the camera instead?

For optimum results, generally sharpening should be as late in the workflow as possible. So definitely not in the camera.

Sometimes workflow issues may argue for trying to create images in the camera that can be printed without further adjustment. This can sometimes trump the need for ultimate quality, in which case other answers come up.
—
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>