Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 28, 2007, 6:54 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Hi, all

I'm looking for some advice on the Sharpness setting in E-Volt DSLRs. Over many years I've been using an E-20 and an E-500 and I've never really futzed around with that setting, just left it at the default.

How does changing that setting manifest in the resulting photos? What has been your experience when changing it?

Thanks!

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 28, 2007, 11:01 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Some people have complained of halos, so they've set it at -2. Myself I haven't seen a problem so I've set it to +2. It might have to do with the firmware installed as both of us had the same camera.

There's no right answer as each camera is different...select the settings YOU like!
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 2:44 AM   #3
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

It depends on what you are wanting out of the camera.

It affects the image quality only if you are using JPEG, and 'by default' using JPEG is pointing more at quick turn around and 'snaps' than the higher quality achieved using RAW files. So if you are wanting a set of 6"x4"s, and that is all, you could set the sharpening higher. If however you wanted to make a large print, you would set the sharpeningat '-2', because the in camera sharpening isn't as sophisticated as PC based programmes like PS3 or Olympus Master 2, and you would need these to sharpen the image, otherwise it could look crude and detail may be lost. Setting higher than '-2' may be the cause of the halo's Mikefellh mentions, through sharpening in camera, andthen sharpening again in post processing. Of course all adjustments arepermanent on JPEG files, so you need to think ahead.

Another consideration regarding sharpening on say the new E510, and it may apply to the E500, is that when the Noise Filter (not Noise Reduction) is set to any variation of 'On' it adds some sharpening to the image to compensate for the noise filters overall softening of the picture, thereby meaning you can't in 'best practice' add any more sharpeningin post processing, as all sharpening should be done as one action. So given the E510 (E500?) are pretty noise free, and noise can be reduced in post processing anyway before sharpening is added, many people are setting the noise filter to '-2'.

So I'd say the 'best' sharpening options for Oly JPEG's are sharpening '-2' and Noise Filter 'Off' , but expect to do post processing.
OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 8:32 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

OCD wrote:
Quote:
It depends on what you are wanting out of the camera.

It affects the image quality only if you are using JPEG, and 'by default' using JPEG is pointing more at quick turn around and 'snaps' than the higher quality achieved using RAW files.
How many PROs use RAW if it's better...none that I've met (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc.). Personally I use the advice of these guys (who've I've also met):
http://www.nobsphotosuccess.com/tuto...rolieswmv.html
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 9:16 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,066
Default

Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:
OCD wrote:
Quote:
It depends on what you are wanting out of the camera.

It affects the image quality only if you are using JPEG, and 'by default' using JPEG is pointing more at quick turn around and 'snaps' than the higher quality achieved using RAW files.
How many PROs use RAW if it's better...none that I've met (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc.). Personally I use the advice of these guys (who've I've also met):
http://www.nobsphotosuccess.com/tuto...rolieswmv.html
yes indeed
i shoot jpeg because its faster to process and i can automate some of the work flow
time pressures and costs force me to accept methods that are expedient, for in my racket speed is everything. I can process 30 jpegs an hour, balance light, balance brightness, correct distortion, straighten the verticals and some serious UM tuned back by adding it to a top layer and adjusting opacity. And BTW my 'snaps' end up on print media and billboards.

im sure RAW with give more quality, but i feel the need to forgive one gain for the other, and im happy with the jpeg quality from Olys. If the 510 cant deliver good jpeg for me, i need a long hard think about my workflow.

For the record, my E-300 has sharpness +2, contrast -1, saturation -1. Its almost always on iso100 (it is a 300 after all)

Riley

Rriley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 11:19 AM   #6
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

Quote:
How many PROs use RAW if it's better...none that I've met (Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc.).

I'm not sure why you think I was referring to pro's? I was talking about the ultimate quality available from the camera. But if you only listen to people you have met then perhaps you should go out of your way to meet new friends, because RAW workflow is superior in every respect to JPEG, 'if' quality is what you are after.

With programmes such as Lightroom now available, where batch processing and adjustments can be handled on files worth of RAW imageswith one touch of the keyboardthere is no longer any reason not to consider RAW as a viable workflow for the busy pro. And while we agree ultimate quality is not what the 'pro' is necessarily about, it is nice to have if you find you need to gain the extra EV range available in RAW files.
OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 2:10 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

I've decided to remove what I had previously posted as the RAW debate is off topic, and you'd rather insult me than have an intelligent conversation.
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2007, 3:20 PM   #8
OCD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 101
Default

I'm very sorry you thought it was an insult (I thought I was enlightening you), butwhen you playthe card 'you can't argue with me because I know a professional photographer', it is equally a dastardly excuse to get your own way. So live by the sword and die by it.
OCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 5, 2007, 10:32 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
trooplewis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 578
Default

Nice to know that others shoot jpeg as well. RAW just takes too long, and a big learning curve as well.
trooplewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2007, 10:33 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
jorgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
I've decided to remove what I had previously posted as the RAW debate is off topic, and you'd rather insult me than have an intelligent conversation.
Probably wise! RAW seems to be a touchy subject and like religion / politics a matter of belief.

trooplewis, stick to JPG. I have yet to see proof that RAW is better in any way. Since RAW files are larger, they take up more space on card / computer / backup and take longer to save / load on cards / computers / programs. You should therefore make sure you would gain anything, before you take the trouble using RAW.

Jorgen
http://jorgen.photoblog.com

jorgen is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 AM.