Many comparisons of digital and film photography go off the board and wind up looking like apples and oranges: Fruit, yes, but with very different genetics. My reason for asking this question is simple. I see many wonderful digital images and some that reach a bit far in sharpening. Sure, post work will yield beautiful images for print and those need not by any means be a mimic of film captures. I am no purist in that regard. So, with the intro out of the way, tell me if you can just how much sharpening in a digital image will produce the visual equivalent of a film shot of the same subject? Tons of variables exist so lets say we want an 8x10 print from 35mm or from normal size digital(full frame or smaller). When does post work sharpening take the digital image beyond the 35mm print? When is the film image passed and unnatural sharpening begin? Suppose an image is taken of a lattice of wood, straight and crossing boards with wood grain showing. Imagine the film version with excellent detail. Imagine the digital with equal detail. Imagine the digital taken a bit further. Is there a point at which this transition may be judged? Who knows, maybe the film version is more natural to the original and perhaps the post worked digital is. Here we go again, more apples and oranges with pears thrown in, too.

Errrmmmm Sharpening in digital image editing is increasing the contrast between different shades or tones the same happens with film by choosing different: film, papers & processing. Unsharp mask the most popular way of sharpening is a traditional photographic technique copied over to digital image processing.

i believe as long as one is using the Unsharp Mask in their editing program &/or has the sharpening turned "on" on their digital camera then oversharpening is possible with digital imaging don't think it's possible with old fashioned developing of film images (?) related topics that show how much sharpening is too much: Unsharpen Mask and Oversharpening by MichelleA Digital Image Sharpening by DHolman

Tanks for this stuff..as the images on the link Cindy provided, the Michelle one clearly shows effects well. I wonder still. Sure some dramatic stuff sometimes very bad and sometimes very well-done is produced by bending the rules abit in postwork, entering a slightly different world and still being photography. The famous old timers experimented and "postworked" in the lab more than some might suspect, I suspect.

absolutely... a lot is/was possible in the tradition darkroom & i've seen the oversharpening used as a selective effect (i've used it on shiney objects but have found oversharpening looks awful when printed)

Attached Link: http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/unsharp-mask.html

I suddenly feel a bit more educated..now I remember seeing a mask being played with at the image room of a newspaper years ago. The paper had just gone to offset printing and given up the linotype and experiments were done. It didn't ring a thought at all then. Now, all makes sense and another step back into the darkroom.

In a recent Popular Photography they announced the top-of-the-line Canon dslr was the only camera they could find that surpassed film. The took 2 identical pictures and blew them up really large and compared a 1 square inch section revelaing the digital camera was only slightly sharper. But at the time you could get the dslr for the price a really decent used car($16,000 or so)!