Some professionals do not sharpen their raw photos when they postprocess them and the result is still great! How is that possible? Quality of lenses? Different workaround? Thank you!

  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Please give some specific examples. \$\endgroup\$
    – Philip Kendall
    Commented Sep 1, 2019 at 16:04
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ This is probably way too broad to answer satisfactorily... But the notion of "getting it right in camera" is going to be a significant factor. Lenses, cameras, sensors and lighting all play a part in it as well, but it really comes down to knowing your equipment and knowing how to make it do what you want it to. \$\endgroup\$
    – twalberg
    Commented Sep 1, 2019 at 16:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ I bought a f/2.0 50mm fixed focal length lens and I'm totally astonished what difference it makes compared to the standard lens shipped with the camera. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Sep 1, 2019 at 16:24

1 Answer 1


Quality of lenses, stopping down a bit from the maximum aperture of lens and desired depth of field, arrangement of the scene by grouping elements to appear in focus into a comparatively "flat layer". And not overdoing resolution.

Of course it helps if your camera is a "resolution underachiever" compared to the lens quality. I like my ancient DSC-R1 camera from 2005: pretty good (fixed) lens, APS-C class sensor (crop factor 1.66), just 10MP, non-BSI CMOS sensor. That means that the actual light sensitive areas are small enough to have quite lacklustre high-ISO performance given the large sensor size and small pixel count, but have considerable separation, leading to an image that is quite well-defined at the pixel level.

Of course, if you have higher sensor resolution to work with, scaling down should also work to provide images that are comparatively well-defined at the pixel level.

Sharpening comes at a cost of noise, and noise can be kept low by keeping scenes well-exposed. For studio (and a number of other explicitly lit scenes) you can keep ISO values low enough that at least noisiness for a quite basic sharpening level is not much of an issue. However, other image operations like local contrast enhancements or tone mapping also come at a cost in noise while providing more striking effects at larger scales.

I can well imagine that with a carefully set up scene, photographers would prefer investing their noise headroom for more global effects rather than improvements at the pixel level.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.