dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I agree with CptC that sharpening is needed, especially with my beloved Pan ZS20 and other 24/7 (P&S) cameras. But too often we view photos with our reading glasses focused at 12" and would not see much difference at 3' for an 8x10. The photo is for mood not detail unless you are looking for ICBMs on Cuba.

CptnC... how do we set up to get the 100% crop section? By stepwise 1,2,3 so we can be uniform in definition and results. Read a lot, still not clear in my mind.

I use Topaz Detail for sharpening. Detail will work with contrast, shadow, light, etc areas differently. I am forever surprised how much hidden information there is in a so-so photo.
----------------------------
Rongnongno, I think you are talking about the following:
"The simple answer is to produce sharper images with more details and better resolution. The AA filter removes information that cannot be recorded "correctly" by the sensor. It's basically an extra layer on top of the sensor that reduces the image quality in order to remove certain undesired artifact."
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/02/04/why-remove-the-anti-aliasing-aa-filter-in-the-nikon-d800e.aspx/#ixzz2oUm6cr7h
=======================
gregoryd45 you speak of 20 Year old lens, yep well my Sony DSLR uses my 1985 Minolta Maxium AF lenses well. The history of old lenses from Minolta is blended with collaboration with Zeis and Leica. Very good glass almost 30 years old!!
=========================
Flyguy, have you ever tried "acrylic painting" paper, it is highly textured even more than water color paper. Both give interesting effects. Especially if using DAP, Dynamic AutoPaint, to mod the photo.. yep where is the line between photos and art?

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Tacks are not sharp! Actually they are blunt. You want needle sharp pictures! Some pictures benefit from it, and some don't. All depends on your wishes for the completed picture.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

So true.

Dlevon Loc: New Jersey

Good "tack sharp" picture! LOL

Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana

Tell that to my third grade teacher! Lol.

peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA

I sharpen most of my "raw" photos. Often only selected portions need sharpening. Example: Some portraits look better if they are not sharpened. Sharpening only the eyes may be all that's needed.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The Portrait mode of many cameras intentionally softens focus slightly - to de-wrinkle the subject.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

@Ole, the reason you never "sharpened" in a darkroom is because there is a fundamental difference in the way images are recorded on film or digitally.

With film, each "pixel" (though that is not an exact term in the analog world) has chemical elements that record the three primary wavelengths of light. Surely you remember seeing diagrams of Kodachrome et al showing the layers that record each set of wavelengths. So at any one tiny section, say 1x1 micron square, there is a latent image containing elements of the three primary colors.

With digital (except for the foveon sensor found in Sigma's DSLR) the chip can only measure light intensity (i.e., black and white for all intents and purposes). When you see the specification that a CCD is 3000 x 4000 = 12 megapixels, that means the chip has an array of 3000 by 4000 photo sites, but again, each individual photo site can only register light intensity.

So, the way color digital chips work (again, except the foveon) is by having a tiny filter placed above each photo site in that matrix. The typical Bayer array format has 1 red, 1 blue and 2 green filters over each 2x2 square of photo sites. (There are 2 greens because human eyes are more sensitive to green). What must happen to this data is a calculation where the combined RGB color value at a given pixel is calculated depending on the light intensities at surrounding photo sites. This is why there is no such thing as "seeing" a RAW file - it is purely the values collected at all of those sites, but without the interpretation of the file converter that's just a bunch of numbers. So the computer in a digital camera does those calculations so you can "chimp" on the back. And if you import a RAW file to a computer and convert it with different software you could see different interpretations.

Because of the repeated 4x4 matrix of color filters there can be a problem with "jaggies" in certain scenes; thus the anti-alias filter is usually layers on top of the color filter layer. However, the Nikon D800E does not have the AA filter. And the Fuji X-series cameras that use their proprietary X-trans CCD use a different array instead of the Bayer which is said to eliminate the problem and thus make the AA filter unnecessary. With the former, it is said to be more likely to lead to moire effects with certain subjects; with the latter the IQ is pretty outstanding since Fuji avoided that simple repetition of color filters with a staggered 6x6 array.

Still, since each final site must be calculated based on the readings at adjacent sites with the other color filters on them, there is a certain loss of sharpness that might need to be countered with the sharpening process.

Now, I haven't played around with the Leica M - but what they did was leave the CCD unadorned - there is no Bayer array of filters atop the photo sites - so it is purely a B&W camera. And my money says that since there is no need to interpolate colors at each pixel but rather just take the straight readings from the CCD, there is no need to sharpen an image from a Leica M (at least not until it is enlarged by many times).

Lundberg02

Every transfer function in the path contributes some blur. That's why you sharpen last, and you need to do pre sharpening for the printer blur. It's easy to overdo it, though.

lowkick Loc: Connecticut

If you are shooting in RAW, you almost have to sharpen in PP. If you are shooting in JPEG or other pre-processed formats, you should sharpen, but don't have to. If you shoot under optimum conditions, you shouldn't have to sharpen (other than RAW) your shots. The optimal conditions are;

Tripod
Lowest ISO possible (100-200)
Mirror locked in "up" position
Use manual focus
Shoot with remote release or use timer.

If you can do all the above, you will end up with "National Geographic sharp" shots.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

I don't care who you are. That's funny!

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

Actually, true unsharp masking is done in the darkroom. It is a major pain in the a$$ and requires making an unsharp reverse copy (mask) of the negative at a lesser density, then accurately positioning both negatives back together so that the pair can be printed together at higher contrast. The first time you do it in the darkroom, you never want to go back to non sharpened prints because it increased local contrast as well as edge contrast. The end result is similar to what we can do with the push of a button in Photoshop.

Howard Bond is probably the guru of real unsharp masking and makes incredibly beautiful b/w images that way. I was lucky enough to attend one of his workshops many years back. The procedure works, but it very tedious and time consuming. Photoshop was a godsend for me.
Jack

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Another way that we can sharpen B&W is with a high acutance developer for the negative to add emphasis to the edges between light and dark.

But if you think that all images need sharpening you are not taking a variety of image types. Portraits, sunsets and images with bokeh (and many more subjects) will not benefit from sharpening.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I agree completely with what you say. Unsharp masking in the darkroom is more appropriate for landscape and architectural type photography. In my experience, high acutance methods such as stand development with Rodinal definitely increase sharpness but don't help with local contrast.
Jack

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I agree.