«

If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera sharpening
on? Seems sort of pointless to me.

BF <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera
> sharpening on?

Most cameras record the camera settings and pass it along in the
RAW-file as part of the EXIF Makernotes. If you use a RAW converter
that understands this (the manufacturer's converter usually does),
and ticks "As Shot", "Camera Defaults" (etc.) the camera's settings
for things like sharpening will be used by default. You can of
course override this, but I find it helpful as a starting point.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS 14n, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

BF <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera sharpening
>on? Seems sort of pointless to me.

Pointless it is. And the same is basically true of
other adjustments to the JPEG. Do note that a JPEG is
almost certainly still generated though, and is used
both for viewing on the LCD and for generating a
histogram. Gross changes to how the JPEG is generated
might result in changes to the exposure metering.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) (E-Mail Removed)

BF wrote:
> If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera sharpening
> on? Seems sort of pointless to me.

Better to have it off and a little more accurate histogram generated
from the in-camera jpeg (even shooting raw).

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> BF <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera sharpening
>> on? Seems sort of pointless to me.
>
> Pointless it is. And the same is basically true of
> other adjustments to the JPEG. Do note that a JPEG is
> almost certainly still generated though, and is used
> both for viewing on the LCD and for generating a
> histogram. Gross changes to how the JPEG is generated
> might result in changes to the exposure metering.
>
My camera will shoot RAW + jpg but I only shoot RAW. From what you are
saying a jpg is still created for viewing and the histogram?

On Jan 11, 5:09 pm, BF <B...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> > BF <B...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera sharpening
> >> on? Seems sort of pointless to me.
>
> > Pointless it is. And the same is basically true of
> > other adjustments to the JPEG. Do note that a JPEG is
> > almost certainly still generated though, and is used
> > both for viewing on the LCD and for generating a
> > histogram. Gross changes to how the JPEG is generated
> > might result in changes to the exposure metering.
>
> My camera will shoot RAW + jpg but I only shoot RAW. From what you are
> saying a jpg is still created for viewing and the histogram?

For example, set white balance to 10000K (or the highest it goes) and
take a shot, then take the same shot but with the WB to the lowest it
goes. Compare the histograms.

BF wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> BF <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> If shooting just RAW is there any reason to have in camera sharpening
>>> on? Seems sort of pointless to me.
>>
>> Pointless it is. And the same is basically true of
>> other adjustments to the JPEG. Do note that a JPEG is
>> almost certainly still generated though, and is used
>> both for viewing on the LCD and for generating a
>> histogram. Gross changes to how the JPEG is generated
>> might result in changes to the exposure metering.
>>
> My camera will shoot RAW + jpg but I only shoot RAW. From what you are
> saying a jpg is still created for viewing and the histogram?

Yes a low quality full size jpeg is embedded in the RAW file. You can
even extract those if you want.