Raw photos fuzzy at 100%?

[henrfy1]

Shooting with a Nikon D80, and the photos are in proper focus when I shoot in RAW. And they look good when I enlarge in the camera's LCD.
When I open them in the PSE5 converter they also look ok until I go to 100%At 100% they look fuzzy. Shouldn't they also appear sharp at 100%? Or am I doing something wrong.

[Carbone]

If they look fuzzy at 100%, are you sure the picture itself doesn't suffer from a bad focus or shooting a moving subject at a too slow exposure? Do you have the EXIF information (Aperture, Exposure value, ISO speed, etc.) to share with us ?

Ray

[henrfy1]

Photo just shot at about 10 feet.
Auto.
ISO 100
1/60 at f/5.6
18 - 55 lens.
Shot was at 55mm.
In the RAW converter, it looks good at 33% and 50% but deteriorates rapidly as I go up in size. When I reach 100% it looks fuzzy and not sharp. Of course, when I go beyond 100% it looks like heck, but I expect that.

[epaul6]

Shooting with a Nikon D80, and the photos are in proper focus when I shoot in RAW. And they look good when I enlarge in the camera's LCD.
When I open them in the PSE5 converter they also look ok until I go to 100%At 100% they look fuzzy. Shouldn't they also appear sharp at 100%? Or am I doing something wrong.

I don't think RAW (NEF) is the issue. The general rule is that your shutter speed should be twice the focal lenth. So if you are shooting at 55mm and 1/60 (without a flash) you need a steady hand and ideally a 1/110 or faster shutter speed (meaning a larger apeture (smaller number) to get the same exposure). I have a 50mm 1.8 lens and at 61 and a cup of coffee I can't get a clear shot at 1/60. That's why VR lenses are so popular because they maintain sharp images at slower shutter speeds as long as the subject is staionary.

A good VR lens can get expensive. There are quite a few 24-120 vrs available used in great condition as a lot of folks are moving up to the 18-200 vr. Nikon made the 24-120 without the VR so if you are looking be sure it has that feature.

[henrfy1]

Camera is on a trypod and the built-in flash was used.
Maybe I should not expect the photos to look as good at 100% as they do at say, 50%.
I took this shot with two different lenses:
18 to 55
and
70 to 300
Both Nikon lenses.

[henrfy1]

Let me reduce this question to its bare bones:
Should I expect a raw image in PSE5 converter to look just as sharp when viewed at 100% as it does when viewed at 33% or 50%?

[TonyW]

Well almost. As you go up in magnification is will appear to get a little fuzzier but there shouldn't be a big change as you go from one magnification to another. If you're seeing a sharp change then it could be a low memory problem or not enough (or too many) cache levels (cache levels cache views at various magnifications.)

Tony

[NickLewis]

Let me reduce this question to its bare bones:
Should I expect a raw image in PSE5 converter to look just as sharp when viewed at 100% as it does when viewed at 33% or 50%?No - I don't think you should.

Almost all digital images require some sharpening to be applied, and this is very likely to be the cause of the fuzziness you are seeing.

You can apply sharpening in the RAW converter (the Details tab), but I wouldn't do that unless you are not going to process/edit the image any further or resize it.

If you are going to do either of these things, then sharpening should be applied after you have completed your work in Editor as the last step before saving your finished work at your final desired resolution.

Sharpening is a destructive process, so it is frequently prudent to save an unsharpened version of your image before applying it.

Nick

[LeeOtsubo]

Viewing an image at 100% on a monitor is akin to viewing a slide or negative thru a 100x eye loupe. Slides and negatives will also look "fuzzy" when magnified so much.

Having said that, what's your definition of "fuzzy". "Fuzzy" is a fuzzy description. Post a 100% crop and describe what bothers you.

Here's (http://www.photoshopelementsuser.com/gallery/view_img.php?id=18683) a 100% crop of the eye of a roadrunner. It looks fuzzy here but prints fine at 13x19 after processing (the whole roadrunner, not just the eye).

[henrfy1]

Tony, are you saying that if I don't have enough memory in my computer that it will have an affect on image viewing quality?
Also, please explain the "...cache levels, cache views." Sounds like something that I need to know more about.
And Nick, you are advising that sharpening should be the very last thing I do to the image?
When is the best time to do resizing?

[henrfy1]

Maybe I am expecting too much from digital?
Yes? No?
I recently had some 4x5 trannies from a Calumet camera scanned. On my screen at 100% they are needle sharp--just like the original 4x5 trannies.
The digital images I am getting from my Nikon D80 when viewed at 100% don't even come close.
What does that tell me, if anything?

[henrfy1]

Maybe I am expecting too much from digital?
Yes?
No?
I recently had some 4x5 trannies shot with a 4x5 Calumet scanned. On my screen at 100% they are needle sharp--just like the original 4x5s.
The digital images from my Nikon D80 when viewed at 100% don't even come close.
What does that tell me, if anything?

[NickLewis]

Yes, sharpening should be the very last thing you do. The reason for this is twofold:

1) Choosing the correct amount of sharpening is a subjective matter, which depends on the image content and image size, so you should have finished any resizing, contrast, level & colour adjustments etc

2) Sharpening is destructive of image data, so you shouldn't do it while you may still need that data to do adjustments.

Resizing is a bit more tricky. I suspect there are different views. If I know I'm preparing an image for one purpose and one purpose only I sometimes resize it early in the workflow, whether by resampling or cropping to size. But usually I keep as much resolution as possible as long as possible. Certainly if I'm going to want to use that image at different sizes - perhaps a printed version and a web version, then I will work on it it at maximum resolution until I'm happy with it. Then save it unsharpened. Finally, I'll produce separate versions at each target size. And then resharpen each of those targets individually, because sharpening settings depend on image size.

Does that help?
Nick

[NickLewis]

Well, it may simply tell you that sharpening was already applied as part of having your trannies scanned.

Also, when you look at RAW files, they haven't been sharpened at all - they are raw sensor data. And digital cameras normally have filters in front of the sensor to reduce moire fringing, which gave the effect of desharpening the image. I don't think that happens with tranny scanners.

(I assume that by viewing at 100% you mean actual pixel resolution, so that we are not simply talking about the fact that a 4x5 scan has vastly more pixels in it in the first place.)

Nick