# Is softness all Nikon dslr's share?



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

First i thought that my d3200 was too soft at 100% crop, but then i  looked into the top of the line dslr's like the D4 and the CanonEOS-1D raw files and the same softness came up.

You can download the raw files here: http://bit.ly/1g64JLa ( these are only samples made available by the author for editing purposes for anyone, i do not own these images)


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 21, 2013)

Hamlet, the "softness" here is not an issue with the camera, it's an issue with your technique.  The first shot I looked at, the guy on the skateboard, the problem here was your Aperture setting of F 4.0 combined with the angle at which it was shot.  Your aperture was too wide, resulting in a small depth of field, and as a result the elements of the photograph that are not on the same horizontal plane appear blurry and out of focus.   Had this shot been composed differently it would probably look a lot better, had you not been at the angle you were at.  Also notice the flag in the background and how it almost looks like a handkerchief or something the skateboarder is holding.  If you wanted this one to be sharper you should have either moved so that the skater was more along an even horizontal plane to your lens, or stopped down the lens more to bring those various elements into sharper focus.

The other issue you have here is that the photo is slightly overexposed.  If you change the contrast particularly on the second photo (the one shot in portrait mode) the image appears much, much sharper because there is more definition between the skater and the background.  The composition on this shot is much better because his hand no longer looks like he's holding the flag in the background, again changing the angle of the shot or stopping down the lens a bit would have helped on this but all in all if you just fix the contrast it makes a huge difference.


----------



## SCraig (Dec 21, 2013)

Those aren't his photographs unless he recently bought a both a Canon 1DX and a Nikon D4.


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 21, 2013)

Nikons are not soft...The lens has a big influence on sharpness as well as the focusing from the photographer..


----------



## weepete (Dec 21, 2013)

Raw files ALLWAYS need post processed and sharpening applied. The raw files just let you decide how much.


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 21, 2013)

I disagree..If they are sharp to begin with..It is not needed in post..


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

weepete said:


> Raw files ALLWAYS need post processed and sharpening applied. The raw files just let you decide how much.



In the examples i've seen personally, this has always remained true when looking at 100% crops of raw files of even the most expensive dslr's.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 21, 2013)

Hamlet, I checked the EXIF data a little more carefully as SC suggested, it looks like one of these is shot with a Canon 1-DX and the other was shot with a Nikon D4.  Are these your images or did the copyright holder of these images give you permission for you to be sharing their copyrighted images?


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

Yes, you are allowed to edit these freely for editing purposes.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 21, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Yes, you are allowed to edit these freely for editing purposes.



Ok, well deleting them from my drive and keeping my fingers crossed that I didn't just violate someone else's copyrights.  Yikes.  Do me a favor maybe and in the future make it perfectly clear in your original posting that the images you are offering for download are not yours.   

As for the rest, again the problem with both shot's isn't equipment, it's technique.  Now if you'll excuse me I need to military wipe one of my directories, just to be on the safe side.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

You actually thought i shot those? A little premature judgement on your  part. I am not as experienced as the person who shot these. So you are  gonna have to take that up with the afro guy. But show an unedited raw  file to prove your point, pictures speak louder than words.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 21, 2013)

hamlet said:


> You actually thought i shot those? A little premature judgement on your  part. I am not as experienced as the person who shot these. So you are  gonna have to take that up with the afro guy. But show an unedited raw  file to prove your point, pictures speak louder than words.



Well Hamlet like an idiot I just assumed that anyone offering pictures for download wouldn't be offering someone else's pictures for download - because even if this person did give permission for them to be downloaded and edited I seriously doubt that they gave permission for them to be disseminated in the fashion that you have, copyright law can be pretty sticky that way.   Also I respect other photographers copyrights, and I would never take another photographers work in a fashion that they didn't give permission for in advance.  I simply assumed that others here, also being photographers, would share that same level of respect for other people's work.

So you'll have to forgive me for giving you entirely too much credit I guess.  

The images have been deleted from my drive and I've started the wipe process so that even the NSA couldn't recover them if they wanted too - as for the rest, well I guess it's my own fault for getting sucked into one of these debacles again.  I really should know better by now.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

This conversation is getting stale, i've got my answer.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 21, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> So you'll have to forgive me for giving you entirely too much credit I guess.



Ignore list is your friend.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 21, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > So you'll have to forgive me for giving you entirely too much credit I guess.
> ...



Something I should probably give some serious consideration - sigh.


----------



## 18.percent.gary (Dec 21, 2013)

If I'm understanding the question correctly then...Yes, all unprocessed raw files will look "soft" compared to a correctly processed one.

Part of the initial raw conversion process requires a standard amount of "input sharpening". If you want to sharpen the image even more for different viewing scenarios then you can apply some customized "output sharpening".

It's not a hardware issue regarding the camera, it's a software process done in post production. When shooting in jpeg mode then the in-camera software handles all the sharpening etc automatically and spits out the final product.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

Its very aggravating when conversations get derailed by meaningless shatter, i'd hoped that we for once don't end up with a 12 page book of mostly incoherent nonsense.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

18.percent.gary said:


> If I'm understanding the question correctly then...Yes, all unprocessed raw files will look "soft" compared to a correctly processed one.
> 
> Part of the initial raw conversion process requires a standard amount of "input sharpening". If you want to sharpen the image even more for different viewing scenarios then you can apply some customized "output sharpening".
> 
> It's not a hardware issue regarding the camera, it's a software process done in post production. When shooting in jpeg mode then the in-camera software handles all the sharpening etc automatically and spits out the final product.



That's exactly right. I just did a little sharpening myself and my image doesn't look soft any more at 100% crop.


----------



## 18.percent.gary (Dec 21, 2013)

Also... Don't forget that most unprocessed raw files are very, very low contrast. Just by increasing the global contrast of the image to the correct amount will make the "apparent sharpness" of the image much better. It removes the cloudy/haziness from the image making it appear sharper overall. A lot of the the "milky" softness of a raw file is just a lack of adequate contrast.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 21, 2013)

18.percent.gary said:


> Also... Don't forget that most unprocessed raw files are very, very low contrast. Just by increasing the global contrast of the image to the correct amount will make the "apparent sharpness" of the image much better. It removes the cloudy/haziness from the image making it appear sharper overall. A lot of the the "milky" softness of a raw file is just a lack of adequate contrast.



Robins also suggested that, thanks again. This will dramatically improve my pictures. I just never really thought about raw files like you do until now.


----------



## manicmike (Dec 21, 2013)

ShootRaw said:


> I disagree..If they are sharp to begin with..It is not needed in post..



What's it like to disagree with a fact? RAW files always need sharpening added.


----------



## 18.percent.gary (Dec 21, 2013)

hamlet said:


> 18.percent.gary said:
> 
> 
> > Also... Don't forget that most unprocessed raw files are very, very low contrast. Just by increasing the global contrast of the image to the correct amount will make the "apparent sharpness" of the image much better. It removes the cloudy/haziness from the image making it appear sharper overall. A lot of the the "milky" softness of a raw file is just a lack of adequate contrast.
> ...



Whoops! I totally missed that somehow.

Proper contrast is definitely VERY important when processing a raw file. The very first thing I do when processing a raw is 1) get the contrast correct. Then 2) get the exposure correct 3) everything else, cropping, adjusting color, sharpening etc. Adjusting the contrast and exposure will affect color saturation, highlights and shadows, apparent sharpness, etc so it's best to get the important fundamentals nailed down FIRST before messing with the other fine adjustments.


----------



## Tailgunner (Dec 21, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



It's works for me my friend.


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 21, 2013)

Tailgunner said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



Well gosh, then I'd miss out on all those classy responses, you know, the gracious and humble way in which he thanks people who were simply trying to help.  rotfl.  Yup, think you might be right on this one my friend.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2013)

manicmike said:


> ShootRaw said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree..If they are sharp to begin with..It is not needed in post..
> ...



I'm going to disagree with this too.  While sharpening may often be beneficial, it is by no means always necessary.  Neither of these images have had any sharpening applied.
ISO 3200, f2.8 and cropped significantly:






ISO 320, f13, moderately cropped:


----------



## amolitor (Dec 22, 2013)

The beautiful thing about the Bayer Array technique is that you will always get out less resolution than the array has. The demosaicing method trades resolution for color data.

This means that when you pixel peep, you will always -- _always_ -- find that the picture has less resolution than the underlying array of pixels. This keeps you going back for better lenses, better sensors, better everything.


----------



## Overread (Dec 22, 2013)

tirediron are you sure - most if not all RAW processing software, by default, applies a level of sharpening when processing and viewing the RAW image. This default sharpening is often called capture sharpening and its primary use is to provide a clear and reasonably sharp image from which the photographer can work with. If you go into the settings and remove all of the sharpening from a RAW photo it will typically look noticeably softer. 

Sharpening itself is broken into two phases - you've the limited but needed capture sharpening to get a workable image from which to compare to others in the series and to process. Then you've output sharpening; this is typically the last step in editing (since sharpening in itself is a destructive process to data in the photo) and is applied as needed for the output medium. It's done before and after any resizing on the photo for the output need (since resizing is also highly destructive to data and nearly always causes some softness).


----------



## hamlet (Dec 22, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The beautiful thing about the Bayer Array technique is that you will always get out less resolution than the array has. The demosaicing method trades resolution for color data.
> 
> This means that when you pixel peep, you will always -- _always_ -- find that the picture has less resolution than the underlying array of pixels. This keeps you going back for better lenses, better sensors, better everything.



I was just a little bugged because there are some images i want to print out the size of a large paintings, any softness would be obvious to anyone looking at it, but now with a little sharpening i have nothing to worry about, my images look as sharp at 100% crop as they do as the original image. I jumped from jpeg to raw without really thinking about all that raw files entails.


----------



## Zyr55 (Dec 22, 2013)

One thing you can try is set your camera to JPEG and set the sharpening in picture control to 7 or higher.


----------



## Overread (Dec 22, 2013)

Zyr55 said:


> One thing you can try is set your camera to JPEG and set the sharpening in picture control to 7 or higher.



The problem here is that some shots require more and some require less sharpening. As a result setting high values for in-camera editing when shooting in JPEG can mean that you end up overdoing it on some shots - plus unlike RAW mode you can't "undo" that editing to the JPEG.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 22, 2013)

Overread said:


> Zyr55 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing you can try is set your camera to JPEG and set the sharpening in picture control to 7 or higher.
> ...



Exactly right. Raw gives you all the power and jpeg decides for you. But the downside to raw is that its time consuming.


----------



## pixmedic (Dec 22, 2013)

hamlet said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > Zyr55 said:
> ...



Yes and no.

If you are shooting with plans of using the pics straight out of the camera, then jpeg is better.

If you plan on doing any editing at all, you might as well shoot raw and get the most editing flexibility.
You can shoot jpeg and still go through the editing process.


----------



## KmH (Dec 22, 2013)

ShootRaw said:


> I disagree..If they are sharp to begin with..It is not needed in post..


Most DSLR's have an anti-aliasing (AA, or also called a low pass) filter in front on the image sensor that softens the focus of the image. Spatial anti-aliasing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nikon came up with a new design that does not use an optical low pass filter (OLPF) that doesn't affect image sharpness as much.
Only 3 of Nikon's cameras (so far) dispense with the OLPF - the D800E, D7100, and D5300.

Note that forgoing the OLPF substantially increases the chance of getting moiré patterns in photos. Moiré pattern - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IIRC, Adobe removed any sharpening processing from ACR's Raw conversion process back about ACR 5, leaving sharpening to the photographer once ACR display's the converted image.
Note that ACR is Camera Raw in CS/CC/Elements, and Lightroom's Develop module.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 22, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



I actually did shoot jpeg at first and went into editing after, but raw files give me so much more breathing room for when i fall short on my side. Its a safety i can fall back on. Also the more i edit my pictures, the faster i can tell what i need to edit with my nose instead of just my peepers.


----------



## skieur (Dec 22, 2013)

All cameras have to balance a sharp image with the consequence of some level of picture noise in some shots versus a slightly soft image with very little picture noise.  Although both Canon and Nikon produce great images, Canon leans very slightly toward very sharp images with a little noise while Nikon goes for less noise but a slightly softer image.  Few viewers would notice any difference unless they were looking extremely closely at test shots and compounding any comparison is that different models will have different noise and sharpness specs.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2013)

Overread said:


> tirediron are you sure - most if not all RAW processing software, by default, applies a level of sharpening when processing and viewing the RAW image. This default sharpening is often called capture sharpening and its primary use is to provide a clear and reasonably sharp image from which the photographer can work with. If you go into the settings and remove all of the sharpening from a RAW photo it will typically look noticeably softer...


I'm absolutely certain that all of the sharpening options I am aware of are set to zero.  There may be something of which I am not aware that is being applied, only software used was LR 4 and CS4.


----------



## KmH (Dec 22, 2013)

FWIW - LR 4 Develop module is ACR 7.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2013)

gotta love hammy's thread.


----------



## goodguy (Dec 22, 2013)

hamlet said:


> But the downside to raw is that its time consuming.



Depends how you are looking at it, for me working on RAW file is a pleasure, its like a part of the creative process but I must admit if I am after a long trip working on a couple thousants picture could be a bit hard.


----------



## LakeFX (Dec 22, 2013)

goodguy said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> > But the downside to raw is that its time consuming.
> ...



I just recently decided to shoot only in raw. The deciding factor was testing a piece of software that extracts the embedded jpeg from the raw file. I compared the extracted jpeg to the camera jpeg (shot raw+jpeg) and I couldn't see any difference. The software lets me extract jpegs from entire folders in seconds so I don't have to import into LR or Capture NX or anything.


----------



## PaulWog (Dec 22, 2013)

ShootRaw said:


> I disagree..If they are sharp to begin with..It is not needed in post..



Editing a RAW file isn't necessarily "editing in post" in the context you're putting it... It can be... but a RAW is (in all practicality) an unfinished photo, and it is fair to consider slight adjustments to simply be an extension of the camera's output (a superior alternative to Jpeg as far as control goes)... 

The way you're putting it ("not needed in post") makes it sound like you consider RAW files to be finished Jpegs when they come out of the camera. There's editing, and then there's editing.


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 22, 2013)

KmH said:


> ShootRaw said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree..If they are sharp to begin with..It is not needed in post..
> ...


My point is I have imported plenty of pics that were sharp strait out of the camera..I do have the D7100 that of course has no oplf(Plus nice sharp primes)..I always zoom 1:1 to check my focus before I even edit..So hence a photo can be sharp pre-editing...The editing is gravy...


----------



## hamlet (Dec 22, 2013)

Very interesting, maybe its time i look into the d800e.


Though this image is very concerning: link.


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 22, 2013)

That looks like two differently exposed shots...On the E the flash is over exposing..


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2013)

Plus the e lacks an aa screen...


----------



## hamlet (Dec 22, 2013)

ShootRaw said:


> That looks like two differently exposed shots...On the E the flash is over exposing..



I read that some people report having moiré and others not having a single encounter with it.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 22, 2013)

I read that all nikons are soft.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron are you sure - most if not all RAW processing software, by default, applies a level of sharpening when processing and viewing the RAW image. This default sharpening is often called capture sharpening and its primary use is to provide a clear and reasonably sharp image from which the photographer can work with. If you go into the settings and remove all of the sharpening from a RAW photo it will typically look noticeably softer...
> ...


In LR5 the default sharpening is 25.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 22, 2013)

That is true, though i thought that was the raw files default sharpness setting independent of the program.


----------



## kathyt (Dec 22, 2013)

hamlet said:


> That is true, though i thought that was the raw files default sharpness setting independent of the program.


All I know is that when I upload my images to my computer I know right away if I nailed focus or not. If I didn't it gets an X! (that is delete in LR)


----------



## tirediron (Dec 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...


Reset to 0 on mine - I've nothing against sharpening, but like you, I like to know exactly how close my focus was.


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 22, 2013)

hamlet said:


> ShootRaw said:
> 
> 
> > That looks like two differently exposed shots...On the E the flash is over exposing..
> ...


Im one of the one's who has not encountered it on the D7100..From the reviews I have seen, those people report the same thing..no problems..Im sure you would love the 800e..


----------



## amolitor (Dec 23, 2013)

Moire is only going to occur if you're taking pictures of fairly specific patterns, at fairly specific magnifications, with a good lens quite wide open. It's going to be moderately rare, which is why the camera makers are starting to pull the AA filters out.


----------



## hamlet (Dec 23, 2013)

So the question then becomes: is the occasional moiré a worthwhile trade-off for sharper images?


----------



## ShootRaw (Dec 23, 2013)

Removing the filter has not been a issue..Dont over think this guys..


----------

