I'm very happy to see so many people helped by my video! If you're in the mood to help me back, I'm currently trying to save up for a XH2 to advance my landscape work. You can make small one time donations here: www.buymeacoffee.com/dietervanholder
Completely agree. I Shoot Raw-+JPEG and use third-party film recipes, where sharpness is often reduced. For the occasional really good shot I get and want to print , I’ll process the RAW to my liking. But it rarely involves adding more than a tiny bit of sharpness. And sometimes the JPEGs are almost perfect. Lack of sharpness from the XT4 or any Fuji I’ve used has never been an issue.
I'm 11 months late to this discussion, but I'm glad I found this video. I'm not gonna lie that I agree, but not 100%... the reason of that is because I very recently moved from Sony A7R III to Fuji X-H2S and I can totally see the difference between the images, Sony does the raw files more sharper and crisp, while the Fuji does more soft all the way, even cranking the Shape to +4. I've been really trying to get the same as I was getting with Sony, which is like +4 years older than the new X-H2s. I really don't know if it is the image, the configuration, the minus 20pixels I used to have in the Sony, but so far my experience is not being incredible as I expected. Anyways, I think your video brings a good point around sharpness
the 23mm f2 is known for its softness at open wide and a lot fuji shooter ditched this lens for this reason but for me I embraced its softness and it gives me this filmic vibe to my photos especially using those fuji weekly film recipes
softness/ghosting is only a problem at close focussing distances below f4. other than its brilliant lens, In fact the f2 primes I think are "sharper" even when compared to the newer 1.4's in some cases. at least thats what I have found
I’m glad u said that I thought I was missing something 😢 some of the cameras are so sharp to my eye the subjects often look copied and pasted! Not pleasing for me personally 🙃 Being able to capture a shot where the faces are in focus and sharp when I require is the part I’m getting caught on especially when under pressure.
Just found your video. I have a X-S10 and was questioning why some of my photos weren't as sharp. Turns out using old lenses and using the extra sharpening creates a soft blur on the edges that, when processing it, makes the image even less sharper. Turning the sharpening off showed a significant sharpening of the edges and giving back the lens' its character. Now I'm enjoying the photos and the process of taking photos more because the characteristics of my lenses really shows in the images that I shot. Thanks for the information and great to hear Roman Fox's name here.
Totally agree. I used to routinely over-sharpen digital photos, especially using the unsharp mask function in Photoshop Elements. These days, as you say, cameras are so good that you don't usually need to apply much sharpening, although some judicious sharpening can help the subject of a photo stand out from the background.
Not sure if you’re aware but a setting of 0 is not “off”. In fact, even -4 on both sharpness and noise reduction still apply a tiny bit of both. So, if you’re like me, and prefer to post-process in Lightroom and plug-ins so you personally have more control over how they are applied, setting both of these to -4 is the preferred route to preserve as much image detail as possible. If you’re not post-processing then you should find a setting that works for you in-camera.
I have both the XT4 and a canon R5. Generally, the R5 gives much higher detailed images than the XT4 without any sharpening applied. The sharpen setting in the camera menu or in Lightroom are different than the amount of detail captured for perceived sharpness. It’s easy to confuse the difference. It could be the lens, the focus , the sensor or any combination that leads to sharpness issues. It could be Lightroom doesn’t process xtrans raw as will as bsi cmos sensors.
Absolutely spot on. If you have good glass, the image should be sharp enough, its not just down to the sensor of the camera The sharpness works in camera and shooting jpeg, but raw files come out as shot so if you want to sharpen your images and you are a raw shooter, you have to do it in post.
Thank you for this video. I shoot jpegs with a Fujifilm camera and have come to realize that the default settings render the images too sharp. Not sure how other cameras function, but the "0" sharpness setting in Fuji is not zero sharpening but a default level of sharpening. In order to really surpress sharpening, one has to set it in the minus range.
Great job, my perspective on sharpness is dependent what types of image you looking for, if you getting big print images are just for the computer and phone , why getting a Fuji’s camera the phone is enough.
A big thing to mention is difference between RAF (or raw files) and JPGs. JPGs on a sharpness of 0 will look good, but if you look at a raw file of a lens that isn't particularly sharp like the 16-80 (still a good lens) you'll see how much less sharp the raw file is, and additional sharpening IMO is almost required. Also, I learned the at least for lightroom users, Fuji sharpens nicer in camera than lightroom can do and that is a primary contributing factor to why I now like to shoot jpg only with Fuji. Sony has been a bit of a different animal, but point is that when people talk about sharpness and lenses, I feel like the RAW vs JPG discussion has to be a part of it, because you'll get very different results, so we need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. Good video and good points made!
Thanks for contributing Michael. It's indeed valuable to mention RAW processing. When it comes to working on Fuji RAW files I always go back to Capture One. Lightroom is great software, but doesn't seem to get RAF files the way C1 does.
I agree that sharpness isn't everything. I also agree that the trolling in the FB groups are way over the top sometimes (but that's not only in Fuji groups). You did forget to mention that the sharpness setting only applies to jpeg's. For raw's none of these settings apply except for the Dynamic Range.
2:11 I'm so glad I let go of this ideology. Man, it always just became about "sharpness" and everything else was "secondary" If sharpness is what makes someone happy, more power to them, as for me, I feel liberated being able to appreciate different levels of sharpness. From soft, to sharp. It's liberating!
You have a third point you brought up at the first of the video. I'll paraphrase it here." Be kind on photography forums." Life too short to go through it as an asshole.
It’s just hard to choose man Fujifilm makes me want to pick up the camera and shoot but every time I see a picture from a Sony a7iii and up it’s always sharper with more detail and less noise than any Fuji.. deciding right now between a x-t4 and a Sony a7c
Unless you only use straight out of camera shots, never do any post processing and publish stuff to be watched on phones and computers... The camera that makes you want to shoot most will always be the best choice.
xt4. i had an a7c and switched to a pro 3. im not looking bqck. i felt like when i was editing, i was no longer taking photos sitting on my couch in post. now im editing editing in camera, at the scene. same as i would on lightroom, but instead of a laptop, im holding a camera
Cod not agree more. Softness can make an image look more like a painted image, it can also provide an image with atmosphere / mood. This need for images to be ultra sharp can lastly be somewhat destructive, especially when you are learning about photography as it becomes such a goal that often the more important issues like composition are ignored.
If you saw/worked with footage from even big hollywood productions, shot with an Alexa and the best glass in the world, you would be shocked how soft it is. One of the first things any aspiring photographer or filmmaker should do is to actually import some professional material, and compare it to your own. I guarantee the amateurs would be oversharpened 100% of the time in comparison, even to shows/films with a 'sharp' look.
I'm very happy to see so many people helped by my video! If you're in the mood to help me back, I'm currently trying to save up for a XH2 to advance my landscape work. You can make small one time donations here: www.buymeacoffee.com/dietervanholder
Completely agree. I Shoot Raw-+JPEG and use third-party film recipes, where sharpness is often reduced. For the occasional really good shot I get and want to print , I’ll process the RAW to my liking. But it rarely involves adding more than a tiny bit of sharpness. And sometimes the JPEGs are almost perfect. Lack of sharpness from the XT4 or any Fuji I’ve used has never been an issue.
I'm 11 months late to this discussion, but I'm glad I found this video. I'm not gonna lie that I agree, but not 100%... the reason of that is because I very recently moved from Sony A7R III to Fuji X-H2S and I can totally see the difference between the images, Sony does the raw files more sharper and crisp, while the Fuji does more soft all the way, even cranking the Shape to +4.
I've been really trying to get the same as I was getting with Sony, which is like +4 years older than the new X-H2s.
I really don't know if it is the image, the configuration, the minus 20pixels I used to have in the Sony, but so far my experience is not being incredible as I expected.
Anyways, I think your video brings a good point around sharpness
the 23mm f2 is known for its softness at open wide and a lot fuji shooter ditched this lens for this reason but for me I embraced its softness and it gives me this filmic vibe to my photos especially using those fuji weekly film recipes
I love the 23 f2, it's on my camera most of all
This 23mm f/2 is a hell of a lens
softness/ghosting is only a problem at close focussing distances below f4. other than its brilliant lens, In fact the f2 primes I think are "sharper" even when compared to the newer 1.4's in some cases. at least thats what I have found
Excellent commentary, thanks. X-E4 & X-T3 user.
Changing the noise reduction to -4 will make your photos sharper in a good way
I’m glad u said that I thought I was missing something 😢 some of the cameras are so sharp to my eye the subjects often look copied and pasted! Not pleasing for me personally 🙃
Being able to capture a shot where the faces are in focus and sharp when I require is the part I’m getting caught on especially when under pressure.
Nice perspective on sharpness addiction.
Dear SIR,
Very Constructive Thank You.
Definitely agree the portraits on my R5 are too sharp, and I often have to soften them, and love the EF 135f2 for its soft dreamy lolok.
Just found your video. I have a X-S10 and was questioning why some of my photos weren't as sharp. Turns out using old lenses and using the extra sharpening creates a soft blur on the edges that, when processing it, makes the image even less sharper.
Turning the sharpening off showed a significant sharpening of the edges and giving back the lens' its character. Now I'm enjoying the photos and the process of taking photos more because the characteristics of my lenses really shows in the images that I shot.
Thanks for the information and great to hear Roman Fox's name here.
That's very interesting information. Thanks for sharing
How and where did you shut off the sharpening?
In lq of your camera? Did you put it on zero?
Exactly the content I needed at the exact time I needed it.
Thanks dude for this video. I just got an xt5 and this video helped me not to be so hard on myself and images.
Totally agree. I used to routinely over-sharpen digital photos, especially using the unsharp mask function in Photoshop Elements. These days, as you say, cameras are so good that you don't usually need to apply much sharpening, although some judicious sharpening can help the subject of a photo stand out from the background.
Not sure if you’re aware but a setting of 0 is not “off”. In fact, even -4 on both sharpness and noise reduction still apply a tiny bit of both.
So, if you’re like me, and prefer to post-process in Lightroom and plug-ins so you personally have more control over how they are applied, setting both of these to -4 is the preferred route to preserve as much image detail as possible.
If you’re not post-processing then you should find a setting that works for you in-camera.
I have both the XT4 and a canon R5. Generally, the R5 gives much higher detailed images than the XT4 without any sharpening applied. The sharpen setting in the camera menu or in Lightroom are different than the amount of detail captured for perceived sharpness. It’s easy to confuse the difference. It could be the lens, the focus , the sensor or any combination that leads to sharpness issues. It could be Lightroom doesn’t process xtrans raw as will as bsi cmos sensors.
Absolutely spot on. If you have good glass, the image should be sharp enough, its not just down to the sensor of the camera The sharpness works in camera and shooting jpeg, but raw files come out as shot so if you want to sharpen your images and you are a raw shooter, you have to do it in post.
Thank you for this video. I shoot jpegs with a Fujifilm camera and have come to realize that the default settings render the images too sharp. Not sure how other cameras function, but the "0" sharpness setting in Fuji is not zero sharpening but a default level of sharpening. In order to really surpress sharpening, one has to set it in the minus range.
I'm not the great photographer, but I guess you're right, sharpness is not always the most important part of making a fantastic picture! 😁
Good point well made 👍
Thank you
Great job, my perspective on sharpness is dependent what types of image you looking for, if you getting big print images are just for the computer and phone , why getting a Fuji’s camera the phone is enough.
A big thing to mention is difference between RAF (or raw files) and JPGs. JPGs on a sharpness of 0 will look good, but if you look at a raw file of a lens that isn't particularly sharp like the 16-80 (still a good lens) you'll see how much less sharp the raw file is, and additional sharpening IMO is almost required. Also, I learned the at least for lightroom users, Fuji sharpens nicer in camera than lightroom can do and that is a primary contributing factor to why I now like to shoot jpg only with Fuji. Sony has been a bit of a different animal, but point is that when people talk about sharpness and lenses, I feel like the RAW vs JPG discussion has to be a part of it, because you'll get very different results, so we need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. Good video and good points made!
Thanks for contributing Michael. It's indeed valuable to mention RAW processing. When it comes to working on Fuji RAW files I always go back to Capture One. Lightroom is great software, but doesn't seem to get RAF files the way C1 does.
I guess I need to learn what is sharp enough
Good rant!!! Too sharp is not a sign of a professional image.
I agree that sharpness isn't everything. I also agree that the trolling in the FB groups are way over the top sometimes (but that's not only in Fuji groups). You did forget to mention that the sharpness setting only applies to jpeg's. For raw's none of these settings apply except for the Dynamic Range.
That's 100% correct 😉
2:11 I'm so glad I let go of this ideology. Man, it always just became about "sharpness" and everything else was "secondary"
If sharpness is what makes someone happy, more power to them, as for me, I feel liberated being able to appreciate different levels of sharpness. From soft, to sharp. It's liberating!
I always turn my sharpness down as I don’t want to see everything in my photo. I can always add sharpening in post if need be.
You have a third point you brought up at the first of the video. I'll paraphrase it here." Be kind on photography forums." Life too short to go through it as an asshole.
Spot on! We're all tired of the hyenas!
It’s just hard to choose man Fujifilm makes me want to pick up the camera and shoot but every time I see a picture from a Sony a7iii and up it’s always sharper with more detail and less noise than any Fuji.. deciding right now between a x-t4 and a Sony a7c
Unless you only use straight out of camera shots, never do any post processing and publish stuff to be watched on phones and computers... The camera that makes you want to shoot most will always be the best choice.
xt4. i had an a7c and switched to a pro 3. im not looking bqck. i felt like when i was editing, i was no longer taking photos sitting on my couch in post. now im editing editing in camera, at the scene. same as i would on lightroom, but instead of a laptop, im holding a camera
Those who tend to attack and criticize are the ones that need back to school! Poor bastards, let’s all ignore them like they don’t exist!
I need help guys... i bought the Viltrox EF - FX 2 and... my pciture is so soft also autofocus is really bad....
Cod not agree more. Softness can make an image look more like a painted image, it can also provide an image with atmosphere / mood. This need for images to be ultra sharp can lastly be somewhat destructive, especially when you are learning about photography as it becomes such a goal that often the more important issues like composition are ignored.
Agree
You’re soooo right! We’re loosing the sense of photography itself, and most of the photos I see look to much digital, too much processed
👏👏👏👏👏
What about XT2 and other?
The exact same points for all cameras that have in body sharpening as an option 😉
If you saw/worked with footage from even big hollywood productions, shot with an Alexa and the best glass in the world, you would be shocked how soft it is. One of the first things any aspiring photographer or filmmaker should do is to actually import some professional material, and compare it to your own. I guarantee the amateurs would be oversharpened 100% of the time in comparison, even to shows/films with a 'sharp' look.
True…
You make a good point, there is a lot of foaming at the mouth in photo forums, etc. Pointless
Maybe there's money in starting a brand of chewable camera straps 😄
Ehrenmann
See the same kind of misplaced obsession with MP, with no regard to DR. Surprised you didn't mention Lensbaby velvet :)
Dynamic range is indeed the most undervalued spec! It took me a long time to figure that out!
Speak for yourself, I want you to wear safety glasses so you don’t cut your eyes, I want it so sharp 😂
😄😄