Over Sharpening

canon400d

I have attached a photo I took with the 5D Mk11 and 100 - 400L this morning. When I opened it on the computer I found what appeared to be over sharpening to the stag's neck and amongst the grasses on the left and right in the foreground.
I see I only had a F/ 6.3 in AV mode which gave a shutter speed of 1/1600. Will this have caused the problem. To be honest I can't remember checking as I would have been better between F/ 8 and F/11.
I have tried several ways in PS5 to remove it but without success.
This is the first time I have experienced this.
A quick reply would be most appreciated as I am out first thing tomorrow morning on a similiar shoot.
If need be I can use my 7D
Cheers
Bob

pathfinder

Are you sure that is not dew droplets in the grass and on the buck's chest and neck, reflecting sunlight as a specular reflection?

Whether this was shot in RAW, or as a jpg, you should not have LOCAL-FOCAL areas of sharpening. I think this was really present in the scene.

I suggest this was dew reflecting sunlight as a specular reelection, Bob. This can a common experience in the early morning with wet grass.

A polarizing filter should help some with specular reflections.

joshhuntnm

this is slightly off topic, but. . .

I thought over sharpening referred to what is done in post. I didn't think it was possible for a lens/camera to oversharpen. I agree with Pathfinder this may be dew or something

canon400d

joshhuntnm wrote: »

this is slightly off topic, but. . .

I thought over sharpening referred to what is done in post. I didn't think it was possible for a lens/camera to oversharpen. I agree with Pathfinder this may be dew or something

Thanks to you both Pathfinder and Josh. Yes it was early morning and there was dew present. I will keep an eye on it. By the way Pathfinder my 5D mk111 arrived this morning so I will have to use 5D2 which I have only had 6 months as a second. I have had so many excellent reports re the ISO on the Mk3. I was at Blackpook airshow on Sunday taking shots of the Vulcan using 7D and 100 - 400L It was dull and at 1000 ISO grain appeared and ruined the shots. I just thought I would let you know.
Thanks again
Bob

pathfinder

I do not know what your standards and needs are, but 7D frames should be fine at ISO 1000 I would think if they are not under exposed. DO you remember how you processed the shots?

It is true that the 5DMK3 will have significantly lower grain at high ISOs than the 7D, but shot during the daylight hours, and not under exposed, I would think your 7D should be fine for an air show, unless your needs are far more critical than mine, Bob.

My last air show was shot in 2010 with a 7D and a 5DMk2, mostly at ISO 100 and 200. But I would not be afraid to use 400 or 800 at all. If there is a bit of noise in the sky, NoiseWare will easily remove it.

How large are you wanting to print your images. Remember, that grain you can see on a monitor, will never be seen in a reasonable size print. I have numerous frames from a 40D and a 7D shot at ISO 800 or higher, that look fine at 16 x 20 in a print on the wall.


When you say "grain appeared and ruined the shots" can you post an example with your exif data as well?

Looking through my air show images, it is hard to find any shot higher than ISO 400, and that was on a heavily overcast day in 2004. I can find lots of flaws in my images but grain is not really one of them in my opinion. -- http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Airplanes

arodney

joshhuntnm wrote: »

this is slightly off topic, but. . .

I thought over sharpening referred to what is done in post. I didn't think it was possible for a lens/camera to oversharpen. I agree with Pathfinder this may be dew or something

No, that's pretty old school. There is a more modern and effective sharpening workflow based on the work of this well respected imaging expert:

http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask

canon400d

arodney wrote: »

No, that's pretty old school. There is a more modern and effective sharpening workflow based on the work of this well respected imaging expert:

http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask

Thanks Arodney and thanks ever so much Pathfinder for your last reply which I will reply to soon. However,
regarding my sharpening question the image I fist took was with 5Dmk2. with 100 - 400L.
I took this image with my new 5Dmk3 with 100 - 400L and once again I appear to have the same problem. Settings F/5.6 1/800 ISO 640 at 400mm. I cannot blame the dew this time as it was dry. If I had used the 100 - 400L on my 7D I wouldn't have got this.
Cheers
Bob

canon400d

pathfinder wrote: »

I do not know what your standards and needs are, but 7D frames should be fine at ISO 1000 I would think if they are not under exposed. DO you remember how you processed the shots?

It is true that the 5DMK3 will have significantly lower grain at high ISOs than the 7D, but shot during the daylight hours, and not under exposed, I would think your 7D should be fine for an air show, unless your needs are far more critical than mine, Bob.

My last air show was shot in 2010 with a 7D and a 5DMk2, mostly at ISO 100 and 200. But I would not be afraid to use 400 or 800 at all. If there is a bit of noise in the sky, NoiseWare will easily remove it.

How large are you wanting to print your images. Remember, that grain you can see on a monitor, will never be seen in a reasonable size print. I have numerous frames from a 40D and a 7D shot at ISO 800 or higher, that look fine at 16 x 20 in a print on the wall.


When you say "grain appeared and ruined the shots" can you post an example with your exif data as well?

Looking through my air show images, it is hard to find any shot higher than ISO 400, and that was on a heavily overcast day in 2004. I can find lots of flaws in my images but grain is not really one of them in my opinion. -- http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/Airplanes

This was taken Pathfinder on 7D TV mode at 1/800 which I have always done with the 7D when I have done the motor rallies. On dull days I always found it necessary to bump the ISO up to 800 to give sufficient light to the image. Giving excellent results. At the airshow photographing the Vulcan which was my one and only reason for attending I had to bump the ISO up to 1000 to give sufficient light to the image. I see on the Exif the AV is F/20.
I have never done any printing I only process them on CS5 and keep them on my computer and pit the odd shot on my website www.powfootphotography.com.
I am determined to get a good shot of the Vulcan as it is giving a display at Raf Leuchers air show on the 7th September a couple of hundred miles from where I am in Scotland. I will of course be using the 5D3 on 100 - 400L. Hopefully the light will be better and give some colour to this wonderful aircraft. I was on regional crime squad duties when one landed for the last time at Carlisle Cumbria and believe me Brian it was some sight.
Anyhow, here is a shot from last Sunday Brian and as you would agree is not good..
Thanks once again,
Bob
1

Peano

canon400d wrote: »

once again I appear to have the same problem. Settings F/5.6 1/800 ISO 640 at 400mm. I cannot blame the dew this time as it was dry. If I had used the 100 - 400L on my 7D I wouldn't have got this.
Cheers
Bob

Did you shoot raw and process in DPP?

BinaryFx

canon400d wrote: »

Thanks Arodney and thanks ever so much Pathfinder for your last reply which I will reply to soon. However,
regarding my sharpening question the image I fist took was with 5Dmk2. with 100 - 400L.
I took this image with my new 5Dmk3 with 100 - 400L and once again I appear to have the same problem. Settings F/5.6 1/800 ISO 640 at 400mm. I cannot blame the dew this time as it was dry. If I had used the 100 - 400L on my 7D I wouldn't have got this.
Cheers
Bob

Too hard to know what has happened in that photo at that size due to resizing. Was the shot reduced in size using bicubic sharper or bicubic interpolation? Was the resize done in Photoshop, ACR/Lightroom or other software?

Can you post a link to a 1:1 / 100% original size crop that has not been resized? What about a link to the raw image?

Did you shoot JPEG only? If so, did the camera scene or processing settings apply some sort of sharpening? Did you apply any capture or output sharpening in your post processing workflow?

Did you shoot raw and process with capture or output sharpening in your post processing workflow?


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

pathfinder

canon400d wrote: »

This was taken Pathfinder on 7D TV mode at 1/800 which I have always done with the 7D when I have done the motor rallies. On dull days I always found it necessary to bump the ISO up to 800 to give sufficient light to the image. Giving excellent results. At the airshow photographing the Vulcan which was my one and only reason for attending I had to bump the ISO up to 1000 to give sufficient light to the image. I see on the Exif the AV is F/20.
I have never done any printing I only process them on CS5 and keep them on my computer and pit the odd shot on my website www.powfootphotography.com.
I am determined to get a good shot of the Vulcan as it is giving a display at Raf Leuchers air show on the 7th September a couple of hundred miles from where I am in Scotland. I will of course be using the 5D3 on 100 - 400L. Hopefully the light will be better and give some colour to this wonderful aircraft. I was on regional crime squad duties when one landed for the last time at Carlisle Cumbria and believe me Brian it was some sight.
Anyhow, here is a shot from last Sunday Brian and as you would agree is not good..
Thanks once again,
Bob
1

I agree that your image of the Vulcan is not acceptable. Am I correct that you shot this frame at f20? using ISO 1000. If not, please let me know what aperture you used for this image.

How much of a crop from your initial whole image is this image? When I say the grain from a 7D image at ISO 800 isn't too bad, I do mean that you must use the whole uncropped image. If you try to crop it significantly, then noise will be much more noticeable.

pathfinder

arodney wrote: »

No, that's pretty old school. There is a more modern and effective sharpening workflow based on the work of this well respected imaging expert:

http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask

With respect, Andrew, that link is from 2001. It is quite helpful and educational, but still 12 years ago in the digital age. Which is a very long time.

Haven't we seen significant improvements in image sharpening tools in Lightroom and Photoshop since 2001? Especially in LR 4 or 5?

I do agree that Unsharp Mask can be a powerful and useful tool and I do use it not infrequently, but the masked sharpening offered in Lightroom seems much better for initial capture sharpening to me these days.

Am I misinformed, or just a captive of Adobe's propaganda?

canon400d

pathfinder wrote: »

I agree that your image of the Vulcan is not acceptable. Am I correct that you shot this frame at f20? using ISO 1000. If not, please let me know what aperture you used for this image.

How much of a crop from your initial whole image is this image? When I say the grain from a 7D image at ISO 800 isn't too bad, I do mean that you must use the whole uncropped image. If you try to crop it significantly, then noise will be much more noticeable.

Yes Pathfinder I did mention in my last post that it has appeared on the Exif at F/20.
I didn't do any crop to this image and I have posted another image too again without any post treatment.
Bob

canon400d

BinaryFx wrote: »

Too hard to know what has happened in that photo at that size due to resizing. Was the shot reduced in size using bicubic sharper or bicubic interpolation? Was the resize done in Photoshop, ACR/Lightroom or other software?

Can you post a link to a 1:1 / 100% original size crop that has not been resized? What about a link to the raw image?

Did you shoot JPEG only? If so, did the camera scene or processing settings apply some sort of sharpening? Did you apply any capture or output sharpening in your post processing workflow?

Did you shoot raw and process with capture or output sharpening in your post processing workflow?


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

Thanks for replying Stephen. I have always shot Raw and I haven't done any post processing to this image. Could it have been the settings in this image that has caused this? I have attached another image taken at F/7.1 1/800 and ISO of 1600 with no post processing and it appears ok. This is the first time I have used a prime camera on this type of shoot as I have always used 7D because of the frames per second. I used my new 5D Mk3 for the first time because of its six FPS.
Bob

puzzledpaul

canon400d wrote: »

... I see on the Exif the AV is F/20.

Bob, I've no idea what the 'sweet spot' of your 100 - 400 is, but I'd be somewhat surprised if it's f20

Using f8 (say) would've widened your options (as well as aperture)

Have you considered using either of the other 2 modes ... too high a SS speed is irrelevant (imo) for jets as not looking for decent prop blur.

pp

canon400d

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Bob, I've no idea what the 'sweet spot' of your 100 - 400 is, but I'd be somewhat surprised if it's f20

Using f8 (say) would've widened your options (as well as aperture)

Have you considered using either of the other 2 modes ... too high a SS speed is irrelevant (imo) for jets as not looking for decent prop blur.

pp

Thanks Paul.
I was shooting TV mode at 1/800 for the jets and for some reason this bumped up the AV to F.20 and on the last photo of the Vulcan I posted the AV shows F.22. I always shoot motor rallies in TV mode at 800 with an ISO 400 and 800 pending on the light and this usually shows AV around F8 giving good results. When shooting the Vulcan the light was not good showing no blue sky and in order and I found it necessary to up the ISO to 1000. If you care to look on my website www.powfootphotography.com and click on aircraft and then click on an image for details. This is the first time I have been to an air show.
Bob

Peano

canon400d wrote: »

I have always shot Raw

Then you need to link to the raw file of the squirrel that's oversharpened. We can't tell from the jpeg what's going on.

canon400d

Peano wrote: »

Then you need to link to the raw file of the squirrel that's oversharpened. We can't tell from the jpeg what's going on.

I have inadvertently deleted it Peano.
Cheers
Bob

arodney

pathfinder wrote: »

With respect, Andrew, that link is from 2001. It is quite helpful and educational, but still 12 years ago in the digital age.

So what? Zero has changed in terms of the idea of using a multiple round of sharpening. I can show you articles that are far older on the workflow for color management in terms of scan once, use many that haven't changed a lick either. Lightroom's sharpening IS BASED on Bruce's work!

canon400d

arodney wrote: »

So what? Zero has changed in terms of the idea of using a multiple round of sharpening. I can show you articles that are far older on the workflow for color management in terms of scan once, use many that haven't changed a lick either. Lightroom's sharpening IS BASED on Bruce's work!

Hi Andrew,
I think I should add that I haven't used any sharpening on any of the images. I am wanting to know what has or is causing this to some of my images.
Regards
Bob

BinaryFx

canon400d wrote: »

I think I should add that I haven't used any sharpening on any of the images. I am wanting to know what has or is causing this to some of my images.
Regards
Bob

Can you please confirm if this is a 1:1 size JPEG, is it really 100% size as originally captured? Was the shot reduced in resolution using bicubic sharper or bicubic interpolation? Was the resize done in Photoshop, ACR/Lightroom or other software?


Stephen Marsh

pathfinder

canon400d wrote: »

Yes Pathfinder I did mention in my last post that it has appeared on the Exif at F/20.
I didn't do any crop to this image and I have posted another image too again without any post treatment.
Bob

If it was that dark that you needed a very high ISO, why did you choose f20, rather than say f5.6 or f8? F8 would provide 2 1/2 stops more exposure than f20. Just 2 stops is the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 1600. In other words at f8, you could have shot at ISO 400 instead of ISO 1600, at the same shutter speed. Solves much of your grain problem then, wouldn't it?

The grain n the sky can be managed in Noiseware.

Here is a pass through NoiseWare, uploaded as a small 18.5kb jpg

canon400d

pathfinder wrote: »

If it was that dark that you needed a very high ISO, why did you choose f20, rather than say f5.6 or f8? F8 would provide 2 1/2 stops more exposure than f20. Just 2 stops is the difference between ISO 400 and ISO 1600. In other words at f8, you could have shot at ISO 400 instead of ISO 1600, at the same shutter speed. Solves much of your grain problem then, wouldn't it?

The grain n the sky can be managed in Noiseware.

Here is a pass through NoiseWare, uploaded as a small 18.5kb jpg

You have made an excellent job of that image Pathfinder which I very much appreciate. I do have Noiseware Professional software on CS5 and can produce similar results. Can I ask what setting you used in Noiseware as I usually use default.
However, I have mentioned a few times in this thread that I was using TV mode with a shutter speed of 800 which normally gives me an AV between F5.6 and F8 when at motor rallies on dull days is fine with an ISO of 500, 640 and 800.
For some reason on rgis occasion when I bumped the ISO up to 1000 it gave an AV F20 and the image you so kindly put through Noiseware was F22. I should have noticed this at the time through the view finder but missed it.
I appear to have two items in this thread the Vulcan and the Squirrel image problem. I don't know if you can assist me with the squirrel image. This image is the same as the Vulcan no post work has been done to it. Only resized in PS cs5.
Thanks again Pathfinder and once again very much appreciated.
Bob

canon400d

BinaryFx wrote: »

Can you please confirm if this is a 1:1 size JPEG, is it really 100% size as originally captured? Was the shot reduced in resolution using bicubic sharper or bicubic interpolation? Was the resize done in Photoshop, ACR/Lightroom or other software?


Stephen Marsh

Hi Stephen,
I always do a batch coversion in Irfan View software and resize down to 1024.
Bob

puzzledpaul

canon400d wrote: »

...However, I have mentioned a few times in this thread that I was using TV mode with a shutter speed of 800 which normally gives me an AV between F5.6 and F8 when at motor rallies on dull days is fine with an ISO of 500, 640 and 800.
For some reason on rgis occasion when I bumped the ISO up to 1000 it gave an AV F20 and the image you so kindly put through Noiseware was F22. I should have noticed this at the time through the view finder but missed it.


I don't know if you can assist me with the squirrel image. This image is the same as the Vulcan no post work has been done to it. Only resized in PS cs5.
...

Re aircraft pics - especially jets - have you tried either of the other 2 modes, Bob?

At f20, you're likely to be sniffing around the edges of diffraction - so that, together with murk (between cam and subject) and higher iso than ideal are working against you.

Squirrel pic ... can't you re-visit the raw, convert without resizing and then upload a 1:1 crop (ie 100% view) of just the pic area that's of concern, because the re-sizing step is adding other factors into the mix?

pp

BinaryFx

canon400d wrote: »

Hi Stephen,
I always do a batch coversion in Irfan View software and resize down to 1024.
Bob

Ah, I think this may be part of the issue, I have been thinking that this looks a bit like a resizing issue, perhaps with aliasing coming into play.

Can I presume that the 1024px size is only for a duped web display copy and that you keep the original sensor size original?

Do you have a copy of the original 100% / 1:1 original sensor size image? Can you provide a crop at the original pixel resolution so that we can test resizing and how this can create different artefacts in a reduced size image?


Stephen Marsh

canon400d

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Re aircraft pics - especially jets - have you tried either of the other 2 modes, Bob?

At f20, you're likely to be sniffing around the edges of diffraction - so that, together with murk (between cam and subject) and higher iso than ideal are working against you.

Squirrel pic ... can't you re-visit the raw, convert without resizing and then upload a 1:1 crop (ie 100% view) of just the pic area that's of concern, because the re-sizing step is adding other factors into the mix?

pp

Hi PP
Yes I have tried AV and manual whilst shooting planes and the motor rallies and have always gone back to TV. I have just got back from a motor X event using my new 5DMk3 and once again I tried AV and my shutter speed was all over the place and many times was not high enough so I reverted back to TV 1/800 giving F/5.6 - F8 with an ISO 800 because it was dull and perfect results. If you look on my laterst website www.powfootphotography.com you will see aircraft motor sports and MX done in TV mode. Click on an image and you will see.
The CR2 files have been deleted to the recycle bin. I have recovered them all but I just cannot find the image to send you. The image size was 5760 x 3840.
Cheers
PP

canon400d

BinaryFx wrote: »

Ah, I think this may be part of the issue, I have been thinking that this looks a bit like a resizing issue, perhaps with aliasing coming into play.

Can I presume that the 1024px size is only for a duped web display copy and that you keep the original sensor size original?

Do you have a copy of the original 100% / 1:1 original sensor size image? Can you provide a crop at the original pixel resolution so that we can test resizing and how this can create different artefacts in a reduced size image?


Stephen Marsh

Hi Stephen,
I have always resized all the images in Irfen View before going to ACR and PS5. The squirrel image in question would have been 5760 x 3840. Is it best to resize after ACR and PSCS5. The reason I resize ro 1024, it is easier to handle and send in emails.
The CR2 files have been deleted to the recycle bin. I have recovered them all but I just cannot find the image to send you.
Cheers
Bob

ziggy53

canon400d wrote: »

Hi Stephen,
I have always resized all the images in Irfen View before going to ACR and PS5. The squirrel image in question would have been 5760 x 3840. The reason I do this is because it is easier to handle and send in emails.
The CR2 files have been deleted to the recycle bin. I have recovered them all but I just cannot find the image to send you.
Cheers
Bob

If anything, Irfanview should be used "after" going to ACR and PS5.

CR2 files in the digital world are like film negatives and represent the very best data that any camera can achieve. Throwing them away is like throwing away the best that your camera can produce. I preserve all of my CR2 files that have merit on multiple hard drives and data DVDs.

Normal workflow should start with the CR2 RAW file, opened in a RAW converter (ACR or Canon DPP, in your case), white balanced, color balanced, capture sharpened, possibly some noise reduction, basic color manipulated and edited within ACR or DPP as far as possible. Then, if you need further editing, like using masks, you would open the image into Photoshop.

After the image(s) is/are fully developed and saved as a distribution JPG, for instance, then I might use Irfanview, FastStone, Picassa, etc. to batch process the images smaller for the Internet or whatever.

BinaryFx

canon400d wrote: »

Hi Stephen,
I have always resized all the images in Irfen View before going to ACR and PS5. The squirrel image in question would have been 5760 x 3840. Is it best to resize after ACR and PSCS5. The reason I resize ro 1024, it is easier to handle and send in emails.
The CR2 files have been deleted to the recycle bin. I have recovered them all but I just cannot find the image to send you.
Cheers
Bob

Hi Bob, please read over ziggy53’s post a few times! In addition, with different raw processing software or a new version of your current software, you may find that there are improvements made to the processing that do more/better with the original sensor data.

It should be possible to re-create this “oversharpend” effect on other images that are similar to the squirrel.

1) Keep a copy of the raw file! Then work it and save out a copy for resizing to web size. This should look normal/good.
2) Use your regular workflow (without discarding the raw), resizing the same image in IrfenView first, then working the image etc. Depending on the image content, this should look “oversharpend” when compared to the first workflow.

Some PDF links that may be of help in understanding the importance of raw camera data:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/linear_gamma.pdf
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/non_destructive_imaging.pdf
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/dng_primer.pdf


Hope this helps,


Stephen Marsh

canon400d

ziggy53 wrote: »

If anything, Irfanview should be used "after" going to ACR and PS5.

CR2 files in the digital world are like film negatives and represent the very best data that any camera can achieve. Throwing them away is like throwing away the best that your camera can produce. I preserve all of my CR2 files that have merit on multiple hard drives and data DVDs.

Normal workflow should start with the CR2 RAW file, opened in a RAW converter (ACR or Canon DPP, in your case), white balanced, color balanced, capture sharpened, possibly some noise reduction, basic color manipulated and edited within ACR or DPP as far as possible. Then, if you need further editing, like using masks, you would open the image into Photoshop.

After the image(s) is/are fully developed and saved as a distribution JPG, for instance, then I might use Irfanview, FastStone, Picassa, etc. to batch process the images smaller for the Internet or whatever.

Thanks Ziggy I have definately being doing things the wrong way round. I follow everything you have said and I appreciate it, and I think it is now time to draw a line under this thread and I will see how things progress.
Thanks again Ziggy.
Bob