David,
this is where things get difficult when looking at digital images -- what might be over-sharpening to you might be the way I saw the image in my mind's eye.

Let me start by saying that I agree with you. Many of the images I see posted look to me as if they are sharpened beyond the ability of any lens I've seen to resolve. Having said that, is it "wrong" to sharpen a scene to a level that matches what my eyes see versus what my lens sees? I have 20/18 vision (thank you, Lord). I see things pretty clearly. Do I sharpen in post-production to match that vision?

Or, do I match what I remember film used to look like? Keeping in mind that film has its own limitations in terms of ability to resolve detail.

My own preference is to under-sharpen. The sharper the lens I used to capture the image, the less sharpening I apply in post-production. While that may seem intuitive, it isn't always the case. When I shoot portraits of people, I like them a little soft. It tends to hide skin blemishes. When I shoot landscapes, I like them fairly sharp. Not razor sharp because over distance, atmospheric conditions tend to soften the details. When I shoot macro, I want as much detail as I can squeeze out of the image both on the front end (lens) and the back end (post-production).

The problem for many of us is that we tend to use the same sharpening steps and levels regardless of what we're shooting. I use Photokit Sharpener which is a 3-stage sharpening plug-in which allows you to sharpen the basic image, apply "creative" sharpening to a desired level and then post-sharpen for whatever output device you're using.

I find this approach forces me to think about just how much apparent sharpness I want in my images. My own personal objective is to produce "film-like" images. And in my mind's eye, that film is more like Ektachrome than Kodachrome. But that's me. For others, the objective may be very different.

What's your sharpening objective?

Jim