contrast and saturation in camera or software

Does it make any difference if I adjust the contrast and saturation in the
camera settings or with software afterwards? If I don't like the results
from camera settings, can they basically be reversed with software without
getting any artifacts?

TIA.

mike

If you have the choice, do it yourself. Once done within the camera, it
cannot be reversed and some tones will be lost forever. At least if you do
it yourself, you can keep the original file unedited.

That's why the output from semi-professional dslr looks rather dull and flat
compared to a popular "amateur" model - no enhancement.

"mike regish" wrote in message
...
Does it make any difference if I adjust the contrast and saturation in the
camera settings or with software afterwards? If I don't like the results
from camera settings, can they basically be reversed with software without
getting any artifacts?

TIA.

mike

mike regish wrote:

Does it make any difference if I adjust the contrast and saturation in the
camera settings or with software afterwards? If I don't like the results
from camera settings, can they basically be reversed with software without
getting any artifacts?

If you record RAW, then you can do whatever is needed after the fact.

I don't believe contrast and saturation are reversible, at least at the
extremes.

I believe sharpness is reversible if you know how the sharp algo in the
camera is set.

In any case, the monitors on the camera are far too small to do any
useful judgement of where these setting should be, IMO.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:49:40 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I believe sharpness is reversible if you know how the sharp algo in the
camera is set.

Nope. Sharpening is always irreversible.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

If you have the choice, do it yourself. Once done within the camera, it
cannot be reversed and some tones will be lost forever. At least if you
do
it yourself, you can keep the original file unedited.

Exactly. Doing otherwise is like throwing the negative away after making
the first print.

--
Mark Lauter

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

Ben Rosengart wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:49:40 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I believe sharpness is reversible if you know how the sharp algo in the
camera is set.

Nope. Sharpening is always irreversible.

Why ?


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:
Ben Rosengart wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:49:40 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

I believe sharpness is reversible if you know how the sharp algo in the
camera is set.

Nope. Sharpening is always irreversible.

Why ?

To be honest, I can't readily explain why the process is
irreversible, though it's obvious to me from the description
of the algorithm on Luminous Landscape.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-usm.shtml

I can say that it discards information, but that's just restating
the same thing in different words, and I won't insult your
intelligence.

Do you understand how sharpening works?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall

Ben Rosengart wrote:

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 18:56:16 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

Ben Rosengart wrote:


On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:49:40 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:


I believe sharpness is reversible if you know how the sharp algo in the
camera is set.

Nope. Sharpening is always irreversible.

Why ?


To be honest, I can't readily explain why the process is
irreversible, though it's obvious to me from the description
of the algorithm on Luminous Landscape.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...ding-usm.shtml

I can say that it discards information, but that's just restating
the same thing in different words, and I won't insult your
intelligence.

Do you understand how sharpening works?

I have three (at least) sharpenning algorithms on two programs on my PC.
For one of them, there is a 5*5 matrix of weights used when the
matrix is passed over [I * F = I'] the image. Since on successive
iterations of the filter (which I assume advances by 1 pixel at a time)
would have a specific effect, then performing a reverse order pass with
the filter set to F^-1 should result in the blurred back to orig. image.
I think (eg: I'm not sure that information is discarded).

Having said that, and not having simulated what I say above to verify
it, and in no mood at all to try, I can't state whether it is so or not.

Regarding USM filters (a la photoshop) which is what I use, I would not
be surprised if it were not reversible due solely to the 'threshold'
setting. From a USM'd image it would be impossible to determine which
pixels were the result of a threshold that had been passed or not.

I have no idea which algo. is in a camera, but I would guess it is
similar to the first one I described as it is computationally light.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

mike regish wrote:

Does it make any difference if I adjust the contrast and saturation in the
camera settings or with software afterwards? If I don't like the results
from camera settings, can they basically be reversed with software without
getting any artifacts?


No you cannot reverse these without loss of information but I believe it
is best to let the camera do the adjustments if they are the appropriate
adjustments because the camera should be using the raw data. If the
scene is already too saturated, too contrasty or too noisy for
sharpening, then it's better to turn that stuff off & do it yourself
because highlights will be blown irretrievably, colors posterized, etc.
I'm assuming RAW isn't an option for your camera or you don't have the
energy to go through that for all shots. If you had the option to shoot
RAW + high quality jpeg, you could probably ignore the RAW for most
shots & use the jpeg. I would definitely boost the settings in that case.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

I believe sharpness is reversible if you know how the sharp algo in the
camera is set.

Not true, in general.

Plus, of course, if you're taking processed output from the camera,
you've probably thrown away all the extra precision in the raw file.