JPEG sharpness: in-camera versus post-processing

[multivoiced]

Which of the following choices usually gives better results when shooting in JPEG mode?

• allowing a digital camera to apply sharpening
• setting a camera's sharpening to zero and applying sharpening later in GIMP or other software

My output is always screen (never print). I will rarely, if ever, need an image whose dimensions match the camera's output, meaning I usually scale or resize all images on the computer.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Which of the following choices usually gives better results when shooting in JPEG mode?

• allowing a digital camera to apply sharpening
• setting a camera's sharpening to zero and applying sharpening later in GIMP or other software

My output is always screen (never print). I will rarely, if ever, need an image whose dimensions match the camera's output, meaning I usually scale or resize all images on the computer.

setting the camerato output raw or jpeg and doing all sharpening in post.

 

[multivoiced]

Thank you. To be clear, you're suggesting to set the camera's sharpening to the lowest value. Am I reading you right? I think you're saying it doesn't matter whether using JPEG or RAW.

setting the camerato output raw or jpeg and doing all sharpening in post.

 

[wiltw]

The sharpening applied in-camera only affects the JPG conversion process done within the camera, to write a JPG output file or to create the Preview image which is associated within a RAW file...so what you set for in-camera sharpening has no effect at all when you read a RAW file into a RAW conversion program like Lightroom or Capture One.
In the case of using the Canon-supplied RAW conversion software that comes with its cameras, the software gets passed parameters that are set in the camera, so the results of the RAW conversion from their software does mimic what the camera did.

 

[Sirius Glass]

setting the camera to output raw or jpeg and doing all sharpening in post.

I use RAW only, JPEG is only for dire need and I sharpen in post as needed. One must be careful to not over sharpen just as one must be careful not to over saturate.

 

[multivoiced]

Thanks. I think this is pointing back to the conclusion that effectively disabling in-camera sharpening is the way to go. (I don't shoot RAW.)

The sharpening applied in-camera only affects the JPG conversion process done within the camera

 

[_T_]

Sharpening is not very complex and unless you like the idea of ai adding imaginary nonexistent detail to your images it hasn’t improved in decades. Further back even; we’re still using the sharpening techniques developed in the darkroom around the same time that enlarging came about.

So your camera is perfectly capable of sharpening your photos with the same level of quality and fidelity that you can do manually.

The problem is that you have very little say in what details get sharpened and how much with the in camera sharpening.

If you’re happy with how your camera sharpened jpgs look and don’t want any further control then let the camera do it and that’s one less thing to think about.

If you want to have your photos sharpened exactly the way you want them then manual sharpening is the only way to do that.

 

[koraks]

Which of the following choices usually gives better results when shooting in JPEG mode?

Sharpen before output in the size/dimensions needed, and only depending on the application.
E.g. for output to inkjet I don't sharpen at all; the JPEG gets sent to the printer driver as-is.
For output to web, I resample to a suitable size and then apply sharpening (simple unsharp mask).
I personally don't see any utility in sharpening full-size JPEGs.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I use RAW only, JPEG is only for dire need and I sharpen in post as needed. One must be careful to not over sharpen just as one must be careful not to over saturate.

I use TopazAI as my primary post-processing software within PS, which automatically avoids oversharpening or other beginner mistakes but feels like an upgrade to my camera equipment; highly recommended and I have no association.

 

[WeiW]

I do both, i.e save both raw and jpg in camera. I'd prefer sharpening in LR. But sometimes I need to wireless transfer the jpg to my phone to share with someone soon.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I use TopazAI as my primary post-processing software within PS, which automatically avoids oversharpening or other beginner mistakes but feels like an upgrade to my camera equipment; highly recommended and I have no association.

Since I am still low on the learning curve for PhotoShop, I appreciate that recommendation. Thank you.

 

[jeffreyg]

Plus one for Topaz Ai. You can selectively sharpen with a brush as well as for different degrees and for what type cause ie camera movement and softness. You can also see split screen before and after before saving as a separate file I don’t remember if they have a free trial.

 

[loccdor]

If/when you resize the image, the type of resizing algorithm you use also has an effect on the amount of sharpening you might need.

To my taste, the average among photo-editors is to over-sharpen. I think a (very) little can look good. On my own I rarely do any.

It should be noted that when some sites, for instance Flickr, make different sizes of your images, they actually automatically apply a small amount of sharpening for you.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

What is the difference between Screen output, Glossy print, and matte print sharpening selections in Lightroom Perpetual when you Export to create a jpeg file after completing all edits? Each of those three option settings also has Low, Standard, and High options.

 

[joe bosak]

Sharpening is not very complex and unless you like the idea of ai adding imaginary nonexistent detail to your images it hasn’t improved in decades.

That's what bothers me - I'd prefer the photo to be recording light through whatever recording medium, without adding anything imaginary or removing anything that actually is there (I see that as my job). But the way digital cameras work, even the RAW outputs aren't free from what the manufacturer thinks is good for you. That seems an increasingly odd situation at higher and higher resolutions where I'd guess the influence of algorithms becomes greater in some senses. But then, it's not like chemicals were perfect either. And even as a painter there are other issues out of your control inherent in any medium. So you have to decide where your balance lies.

 

[MattKing]

I understand the reluctance to incorporate digital tools where they aren't felt to be required.
It is important to remember though that the process of digitization itself does "break" the edges of images into discrete parts, recorded pixel by pixel. And that "breakage" has a large deleterious effect on acutance, the largest component of apparent "sharpness". Some sharpening is going to be required, no matter what, to repair that breakage.