Micro Contrast with Unsharp Mask in PS

[Ramiro Elena]

I learned this while talking to a fellow photographer last week. It seems quite interesting and honestly didn't know you could go about it with this filter.

I usually apply a very light unsharp mask to get a little more focus on most images.
Amount: 40 to 100 (the higher value for files created with a digital camera the lower for scans of a negative)
Radius: 1,0
Threshold: 1

With the same tool you can create a similar effect (makes me think of acutance). It actually creates a small amount of contrast in the edges (where shadows meet highlights)

Amount: 15
Radius: 40
Threshold: 1

I tried to show it in a before/after image but it is hardly noticeable. Many of you probably know about this already, I didn't :)

[Old-N-Feeble]

Not to be negative but Radius and Amount are very dependent on image size, subject matter, and opinion. One cannot just plug-in numbers and expect good results.

[bob carnie]

thats what the opacity slider is for.. suit to taste.

Not to be negative but Radius and Amount are very dependent on image size, subject matter, and opinion. One cannot just plug-in numbers and expect good results.

[Old-N-Feeble]

It's not just opacity. Heck... one can add a separate layer with differing opacity and mixing qualities. Radius and Amount are completely different. They really are.

[Lenny Eiger]

I would never recommend a radius that high...

It depend on your capture mechanism, digital camera, flatbed scanner or drum scanner. I often apply sharpness, using a radius of .2.

Unsharp masking is one of the first things photographers should learn when they begin with PhotoShop. In addition, they should also learn about masking, so they can limit the effect to specific areas. I would never sharpen water, for example.

Lenny

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Right!!

[bob carnie]

Then I certainly would not tell you both the radius I use when sharpening water and leaves.

[Old-N-Feeble]

* sigh * :D

[Pete Suttner]

I have never given any advice here but...

View at 100% - radius low like Lenny says .2. Unless you like crunchy images

[gnuyork]

I think some of you may be missing the point. For regular sharpening - yes - small radius - but the OP was talking about micro contrast which does require less sharpening and more radius. I use this technique and it works well.

[Old-N-Feeble]

I think some of you may be missing the point. For regular sharpening - yes - small radius - but the OP was talking about micro contrast which does require less sharpening and more radius. I use this technique and it works well.

Yes... but sharpening and micro-contrast are very closely related and both are directly related to image resolution and subject matter. I find it difficult to believe that this is so widely misunderstood.

[gnuyork]

Yes, but what's your point? I am not misunderstanding.

[Old-N-Feeble]

If you've been working in PS since v. 2.0 then you'd understand my point. Digital sharpening ain't the same, but can be assimilated with, analog accutance.

[gnuyork]

Well I have used PS since before version 5... I do understand your point. Sharpness varies with subject matter...blah blah

Either try the technique or don't. I use it and it works for me.

[Oren Grad]

Ramiro, I understand exactly what you're talking about. When I'm messing with digital processing I make extensive use of Photoshop Smart Sharpen with a radius of 64 pixels and an amount of 5 or 10%. This acts as a gentle image intensifier - sort of a cousin of modest doses of contrast or (in ACR) clarity - and serves a different function from the narrow-radius, high-amount approach that most people think of when you use the term "sharpening".

[bob carnie]

I work with various sharpening,,, at least 6 types,,, low amount high radius in certain situations kills any other type of sharpening, different strokes for different folks..

here we do selective sharpening and not overall sharpening as a rule, unless of course the image requires overall sharpening.... kind of like painting with a brush and too the OP's point you can create mid tone contrast with high radius sharpening,,, or you can use soft light,, or you could steepen the curve shape in areas and paint in,,, or you could bla bla bla ...

remember sharpening with masks in the photo-comp days so I think I trump v. 2.0 or Version 5... slight misregistration sometimes can work magic.

[Old-N-Feeble]

good lord...

[Greg Miller]

With the same tool you can create a similar effect (makes me think of acutance). It actually creates a small amount of contrast in the edges (where shadows meet highlights)

Amount: 15
Radius: 40
Threshold: 1



I use this a fair amount too. Except I use a radius of 60. So the naysayers can pick on me instead (but they should try it out first before they condemn...). It is useful for landscapes photos with too much haze or humidity.

[Greg Miller]

With the same tool you can create a similar effect (makes me think of acutance). It actually creates a small amount of contrast in the edges (where shadows meet highlights)

Amount: 15
Radius: 40
Threshold: 1

I tried to show it in a before/after image but it is hardly noticeable. Many of you probably know about this already, I didn't :)

By the way, this effect is very similar to what the Clarity slider provides in ACR.

[Bruce Watson]

I use this a fair amount too. Except I use a radius of 60. So the naysayers can pick on me instead (but they should try it out first before they condemn...). It is useful for landscapes photos with too much haze or humidity.

I use this too. It's an excellent way to control micro-contrast and cut through a little haze. There's more to the unsharp masking tool than just simple sharpening people!

I find this tool is pretty image dependent. I find that most of my landscape work wants a radius around 20-25, and an amount around 20-60 or so. I have to flip it on and off trying to find what looks right while I adjust the settings, then I have to make a test print to be sure. The only sure way to tell what a filter means to a print is to make a print.

I suspect that the reason I'm using a smaller radius for this than many people is that I'm working on a drum scanned image file. But IDK for sure since I haven't worked with flatbed scanners much.

[Ramiro Elena]

Yes, I just didn't want to get in to it since I assumed people have that figured out already. It, of course depends on image size and subject matter. I don't work flow it and it doesn't work with all images. The figures I provided are a mere example based on the image size I usually work with and even then, I sometimes don't use it.

I am very conservative with PS adjustments. That's why I didn't attach an example. The result is so slight you only see it when you turn the layer on and off.
I didn't know about the clarity slide Greg. I'll check that out, thanks.

[Ben Hopson]

I use the technique for boosting mid tone contrast when an image, or parts of an image would benefit from it and also use it in conjunction with layer masks to paint it in or out selectively.

[John Rodriguez]

Radius sets the width of the sharpening halos. How wide to set them is complete dependent your subject and how many pixels you're playing with. Light halos stand our more then dark ones. I usuallly use separate lighten and darken sharpen layers at different opacities. Also, it's often better to apply locally. I use a range between .5 and 3 pixels, with relatively high amounts and then us opacity to dial in the how strong the halos are, based upon what I learned from Dan Margulis' workflow. Jeff Shewe recommends 1.5 to 3 pixels for edge enhancement. I've tried both low pixel radius's (sub 1) with high opacity and higher radius's (1-3) with lower opacity and the higher radius approach always gives me better prints. Low radius's like .5 I save for web images.

Ramiro, the later method you're describing is often called HIRALOAM sharpening (high radius low amount). It's very useful for enhancing shape contrast where you may not want to increase edge sharpness, such as in faces or moving water.

[Peter Mounier]

Well, it's a technique I haven't tried before, and I like it! Thanks for the tip.

Peter

[bob carnie]

I spent 12 long days with Dan Margulis.. completely changed the way I thought about PS .I still keep reading his books to see what the hell he was babbling on about.

faces water, any flat surface works well with high radius low amount.




Radius sets the width of the sharpening halos. How wide to set them is complete dependent your subject and how many pixels you're playing with. Light halos stand our more then dark ones. I usuallly use separate lighten and darken sharpen layers at different opacities. Also, it's often better to apply locally. I use a range between .5 and 3 pixels, with relatively high amounts and then us opacity to dial in the how strong the halos are, based upon what I learned from Dan Margulis' workflow. Jeff Shewe recommends 1.5 to 3 pixels for edge enhancement. I've tried both low pixel radius's (sub 1) with high opacity and higher radius's (1-3) with lower opacity and the higher radius approach always gives me better prints. Low radius's like .5 I save for web images.

Ramiro, the later method you're describing is often called HIRALOAM sharpening (high radius low amount). It's very useful for enhancing shape contrast where you may not want to increase edge sharpness, such as in faces or moving water.

[John Rodriguez]

I spent 12 long days with Dan Margulis..

I think 12 straight days would make my head explode. I'm constantly going back to reread his stuff as well.

[bob carnie]

Explode for sure, I did it over four timelines , three days at a time was more than enough to confuse the hell out of me.

I think 12 straight days would make my head explode. I'm constantly going back to reread his stuff as well.

[paulr]

"Microcontrast" is one of those words without an agreed upon meaning, but I generally take it to mean local contrast, which is contrast on a scale much smaller than overall image contrast, but larger than the scale of the finest details (microcontrast would actually be a better characterization of sharpness).

Don't use a fixed number of pixels; translate to the actual linear dimensions in your final print. This will vary with both print size and the resolution of the image. I routinely goose the local contrast with a pixel radius of 180. This sounds extreme, but the high radius actually helps you avoid visible halos around tonal transitions. In a 360 ppi print, this translates to a half inch. If it's applied with modest strength (10 to 20), and applied to a layer with blend modes that exclude the darkest shadows and brightest highlights, the result is like a veil being lifted off the image. It's extremely useful.

Unlike the OP, I find that scanned negatives benefit from a stronger application of this (and other sharpening techniques) than do digitally capured files. The quality of the orignial file (light, exposure, lens, sensor) all play into this. I've been playing with other people's raw files from the Nikon d800, and find that they require less sharpening and local contrast enhancement than other files I've worked with.

For actual sharpening, I divide into capture sharpening and output sharpening. Capture sharpening is just to restore edge definition lost in the scanning process or in the digital capture process (like from the optical lowpass filter). The amount varies with the scanner and settings or with the camera. I'll typically do something like 40% and 0.6 pixels.

Output sharpening is for optimizing the shaprness of a particular print. Again, think about the actual linear distance on the print. I aim for a radius that equals 1/10 mm (this correlates with the 5 lp/mm range, at which the human eye is most sensitive to the edges of fine detail. A print with excellent edge contrast in this frequency range looks sharp, like a contact print). In a 360 ppi print this equals 1.4 pixels. I judge the amount through trial and error, but can get very close by looking at the file on screen at 25% and 50%. Sharpening at this high a radius will create a file that looks oversharpened at 100% on screen, but it will look great in the print.

[earlnash]

this is a well recognized technique (i.e. high radius 40-60, low amount 30-60) to bring out more contrast in the middle ranges, where the borders between a light and dark area have much smoother transitions. Low radius (1-3 pixels) is great for sharpening the fabric pattern on a shirt, or tree branches, while high radius is good for bringing out the subtler contrasts in an adobe wall. Lenny Eiger is right - you need to be able to mask the sharpening effects in some areas.