Sfrgttk

Why is quixotic not Quixotic (a proper adjective)?

How can I portray body horror and still be sensitive to people with disabilities?

What is the source for this Leonardo Da Vinci quote?

Short story in which aliens follow chain of increasingly ferocious/belligerent animals culminating with human child

Truncating the output of AES-128

How would "The dog is older than the child" be translated?

Define function that behaves almost identically to Mathematica function

Why is Shelob considered evil?

How do I handle a blinded enemy which wants to attack someone it's sure is there?

The Late Queen Gives in to Remorse - Reverse Hangman

How to play songs that contain one guitar when we have two or more guitarists?

How can I add more depth to my poem?

Why Third 'Reich'? Why is 'reich' not translated when 'third' is? What is the English synonym of reich?

Taking an academic pseudonym?

Do all Half-Elf subraces forgo the Skill Versatility feature?

Why would you use 2 alternate layout buttons instead of 1, when only one can be selected at once

Coworker is trying to get me to sign his petition to run for office. How to decline politely?

How do sapient birds/theropods build their seats?

How sharp are RAW photos before processing?

How do I write a maintainable, fast, compile-time bit-mask in C++?

Ramanujan's radical and how we define an infinite nested radical

What is the correct way to shuffle?

Can I legally make a website about boycotting a certain company?

Identical projects by students at two different colleges: still plagiarism?

How sharp are RAW photos before processing?

What is RAW, technically?Why should my last post-processing step be sharpening?Why is a physical anti-aliasing filter still needed on modern DSLRs?How can I fix an out of focus photo? Is there an app for that? I don't have PhotoshopWhat tools are available for RAW image processing in Linux?Raw Captured Image processingHow do I view and edit RAW photos?How to open RAW photos?Why are my RAW format photos pink?What does “linearization” mean in RAW processing?RAW processing stepsAre my RAW photos underexposed?How to take sharper photosWhy am I getting blurry images with a Sigma 35mm Art and Canon EOS 77D?

1

1

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

As an amateur I am trying to figure out at what point is the blur a product of user error or if it's natural? I shoot with a Sony A7RII if that makes any difference.

raw autofocus sony

share|improve this question

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  See also: What is RAW, technically?
  
  – osullic
  55 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

1

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

As an amateur I am trying to figure out at what point is the blur a product of user error or if it's natural? I shoot with a Sony A7RII if that makes any difference.

raw autofocus sony

share|improve this question

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  See also: What is RAW, technically?
  
  – osullic
  55 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

As an amateur I am trying to figure out at what point is the blur a product of user error or if it's natural? I shoot with a Sony A7RII if that makes any difference.

raw autofocus sony

share|improve this question

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

share|improve this question

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

share|improve this question

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

asked 5 hours ago

AlanAlan

1224

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

5

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

Wait wait wait — let me stop you right there. When you open up RAW files in Lightroom, you are seeing a processed image. Lightroom does not have a RAW data viewer, and the unprocessed RAW data doesn't look very interesting even if it did. What you're seeing is either a JPEG preview (processed by the camera) or the default processing you have configured in Lightroom.

It sounds like the settings for that default rendering include less sharpening than you like. Behind all of this is your fundamental question: is sharpening a necessary part of a RAW workflow (assuming sharp images are desired)? The answer is yes — see Why should my last post-processing step be sharpening?, which is partly about the order but also gives some explanation as to why.

Digital cameras (with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon) use a pattern of colored filters to create color images. This means color in the final image is produced via algorithms which infer complete color information from neighboring photosites. A final sharpening pass usually makes the results of these algorithms more snappy. And, although it's less common now that higher-resolution sensors make it less necessary, many digital cameras contain an (optical) low-pass filter, which intentionally blurs the image slightly to avoid moire. (See Why is a physical anti-aliasing filter still needed on modern DSLRs?.)

Additionally, digital sharpening (especially the magic that is Richardson–Lucy deconvolution) can compensate for other sharpness factors: missed focus, soft optics, or even motion blur.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  thanks for info! I have always assumed RAW photos have a "default" look. So if I viewed a RAW file on different viewers/editing programs, they would not be identical? If so, then I mean the default processing when using Lightroom CC for iPad. I press the Auto button as a starting point and it seems to get it 70% of the way there to what I would want it to look like.
  
  – Alan
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Right, that's absolutely the case. There's no default look. This leads some people to say that RAW files aren't even really images. They're... potential pre-images or something. Usually, cameras encode some basic information about camera color settings that can be used by RAW converters, but often that's just ignored, and even when it isn't, each program has its own way of interpreting what that might mean.
  
  – mattdm
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mattdm - Hi, "with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon" Do you mean "with the mostly-obscure exception of Foveon"? I didn't understand it "as written". Thanks :-)
  
  – SamGibson
  13 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

There are two questions here:

• is it normal that the final processed photo is more sharp than what was captured by the lens?




• is it normal that the RAW sensor readings are more blurry than the image focused by the lens?

And the answer is YES - both the lens and the sensors are not perfect and digital processing is used (and sometimes overused) to make up the imperfections.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f105258%2fhow-sharp-are-raw-photos-before-processing%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

5

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

Wait wait wait — let me stop you right there. When you open up RAW files in Lightroom, you are seeing a processed image. Lightroom does not have a RAW data viewer, and the unprocessed RAW data doesn't look very interesting even if it did. What you're seeing is either a JPEG preview (processed by the camera) or the default processing you have configured in Lightroom.

It sounds like the settings for that default rendering include less sharpening than you like. Behind all of this is your fundamental question: is sharpening a necessary part of a RAW workflow (assuming sharp images are desired)? The answer is yes — see Why should my last post-processing step be sharpening?, which is partly about the order but also gives some explanation as to why.

Digital cameras (with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon) use a pattern of colored filters to create color images. This means color in the final image is produced via algorithms which infer complete color information from neighboring photosites. A final sharpening pass usually makes the results of these algorithms more snappy. And, although it's less common now that higher-resolution sensors make it less necessary, many digital cameras contain an (optical) low-pass filter, which intentionally blurs the image slightly to avoid moire. (See Why is a physical anti-aliasing filter still needed on modern DSLRs?.)

Additionally, digital sharpening (especially the magic that is Richardson–Lucy deconvolution) can compensate for other sharpness factors: missed focus, soft optics, or even motion blur.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  thanks for info! I have always assumed RAW photos have a "default" look. So if I viewed a RAW file on different viewers/editing programs, they would not be identical? If so, then I mean the default processing when using Lightroom CC for iPad. I press the Auto button as a starting point and it seems to get it 70% of the way there to what I would want it to look like.
  
  – Alan
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Right, that's absolutely the case. There's no default look. This leads some people to say that RAW files aren't even really images. They're... potential pre-images or something. Usually, cameras encode some basic information about camera color settings that can be used by RAW converters, but often that's just ignored, and even when it isn't, each program has its own way of interpreting what that might mean.
  
  – mattdm
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mattdm - Hi, "with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon" Do you mean "with the mostly-obscure exception of Foveon"? I didn't understand it "as written". Thanks :-)
  
  – SamGibson
  13 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

5

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

Wait wait wait — let me stop you right there. When you open up RAW files in Lightroom, you are seeing a processed image. Lightroom does not have a RAW data viewer, and the unprocessed RAW data doesn't look very interesting even if it did. What you're seeing is either a JPEG preview (processed by the camera) or the default processing you have configured in Lightroom.

It sounds like the settings for that default rendering include less sharpening than you like. Behind all of this is your fundamental question: is sharpening a necessary part of a RAW workflow (assuming sharp images are desired)? The answer is yes — see Why should my last post-processing step be sharpening?, which is partly about the order but also gives some explanation as to why.

Digital cameras (with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon) use a pattern of colored filters to create color images. This means color in the final image is produced via algorithms which infer complete color information from neighboring photosites. A final sharpening pass usually makes the results of these algorithms more snappy. And, although it's less common now that higher-resolution sensors make it less necessary, many digital cameras contain an (optical) low-pass filter, which intentionally blurs the image slightly to avoid moire. (See Why is a physical anti-aliasing filter still needed on modern DSLRs?.)

Additionally, digital sharpening (especially the magic that is Richardson–Lucy deconvolution) can compensate for other sharpness factors: missed focus, soft optics, or even motion blur.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  thanks for info! I have always assumed RAW photos have a "default" look. So if I viewed a RAW file on different viewers/editing programs, they would not be identical? If so, then I mean the default processing when using Lightroom CC for iPad. I press the Auto button as a starting point and it seems to get it 70% of the way there to what I would want it to look like.
  
  – Alan
  2 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Right, that's absolutely the case. There's no default look. This leads some people to say that RAW files aren't even really images. They're... potential pre-images or something. Usually, cameras encode some basic information about camera color settings that can be used by RAW converters, but often that's just ignored, and even when it isn't, each program has its own way of interpreting what that might mean.
  
  – mattdm
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @mattdm - Hi, "with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon" Do you mean "with the mostly-obscure exception of Foveon"? I didn't understand it "as written". Thanks :-)
  
  – SamGibson
  13 mins ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Are RAW images by nature slightly blurry prior to processing? If I open them up in Lightroom and zoom into the photo, my photos are not tack sharp but a bit blurry. Once I process, it comes out looking pretty sharp.

Wait wait wait — let me stop you right there. When you open up RAW files in Lightroom, you are seeing a processed image. Lightroom does not have a RAW data viewer, and the unprocessed RAW data doesn't look very interesting even if it did. What you're seeing is either a JPEG preview (processed by the camera) or the default processing you have configured in Lightroom.

It sounds like the settings for that default rendering include less sharpening than you like. Behind all of this is your fundamental question: is sharpening a necessary part of a RAW workflow (assuming sharp images are desired)? The answer is yes — see Why should my last post-processing step be sharpening?, which is partly about the order but also gives some explanation as to why.

Digital cameras (with the mostly-obscure example of Foveon) use a pattern of colored filters to create color images. This means color in the final image is produced via algorithms which infer complete color information from neighboring photosites. A final sharpening pass usually makes the results of these algorithms more snappy. And, although it's less common now that higher-resolution sensors make it less necessary, many digital cameras contain an (optical) low-pass filter, which intentionally blurs the image slightly to avoid moire. (See Why is a physical anti-aliasing filter still needed on modern DSLRs?.)

Additionally, digital sharpening (especially the magic that is Richardson–Lucy deconvolution) can compensate for other sharpness factors: missed focus, soft optics, or even motion blur.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

answered 2 hours ago

mattdmmattdm

120k38351642

1

There are two questions here:

• is it normal that the final processed photo is more sharp than what was captured by the lens?




• is it normal that the RAW sensor readings are more blurry than the image focused by the lens?

And the answer is YES - both the lens and the sensors are not perfect and digital processing is used (and sometimes overused) to make up the imperfections.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126

add a comment | 

1

There are two questions here:

• is it normal that the final processed photo is more sharp than what was captured by the lens?




• is it normal that the RAW sensor readings are more blurry than the image focused by the lens?

And the answer is YES - both the lens and the sensors are not perfect and digital processing is used (and sometimes overused) to make up the imperfections.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126

add a comment | 

There are two questions here:

• is it normal that the final processed photo is more sharp than what was captured by the lens?




• is it normal that the RAW sensor readings are more blurry than the image focused by the lens?

And the answer is YES - both the lens and the sensors are not perfect and digital processing is used (and sometimes overused) to make up the imperfections.

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126

share|improve this answer

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126

answered 4 hours ago

szulatszulat

3,95011126