sharpening drum scans

[Mark Carstens]

A second endorsement of Photokit Sharpener. It's versatile, flexible and well thought out. I bought it shortly after it launched. There's a trial version, and you can navigate to it from here:

http://www.pixelgenius.com/store.html

That said, here's a link to Deadman's Sharpeners (possibly the one Tim refers to, as its location has been moved) which I have also used, and swore by before PK Sharpener. My only suggestion is that you edit the actions to begin with making a new layer and then "merge visible" to that layer so that you can leave your image otherwise unaltered. If you don't make another layer, the changes are made directly to the image. On my Mac, I hold down "shift-option-command" keys and hit "e." The new layer made from all selcted layers appears on top.

Another bonus to new layer is that it also allows you to control the sharpening somewhat by applying a mask to the layer or making tweaks to opacity and fill settings.

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html

Once you're there, scroll down to near the bottom of the page.

Good luck!

[paulr]

No matter what approach you take, it's important to work in relation to final print size. If you you emphasize detalin in the 5 lp/mm range (1/10 mm at final print size) you have the potential of getting beautifully sharp images with no visible artifacts.

[Kirk Gittings]

I do not believe there is any "formula" for the right amount of sharpening. Anything in art that you do purely by mathmatical formula is contrary to personal expression.

When I first got into digital printing I was enthralled by Photokit Sharpener, but after a couple of years I have become a minimalist when it comes to sharpening and I no longer like the look of PKS and never use it. I think it oversharpens the edges and gives prints a digital look. As a matter of fact, though I greatly respect the knowledge of Bruce Frazer, I have never seen an original print by him that was not to me obviously oversharpened. I am one of those geeks that take a loupe to shows. This is a highly personal judgement of course, but as a lifetime large format user I think my standards are different than small format people like BF no matter how much more digital knowledge they have than me (which is considerably more of course).

[robc]

If you use the "Variable" digiedge sharpen action and experiment with settings you will get NO haloing.

Expecting the default settings to work on any image is wishful thinking.

Kirk, have you ever noticed that mathematics is often found within the arts faculty of a university. You might want to have a little think about why that is...

[robc]

I don't think my last post came across quite as intended. I was trying to point out that mathematics is as much an art form as any of the other recognised art forms. Also that using using a formulaic or mathematical approach as part of a process to achieving an end result is as valid as any other approach.

see www.complexification.net/

[adrian tyler]

thanks for all the advice...

i think that possibly the deadman has not been updated for a while as it is incompatible with my cs 8.

definetly mathematics... but what particular math to apply to which particular image is personal and subjective.

i've been playing around with the trial version of photokit and it seems that there are some more subltle options in the "creative sharpener" menu that don't seem to be blasting my 400 asa negs too much, which is what i'm after.

so thanks again, great help as always.

adrian

[tim atherton]

Adrian - on the actions not working with CS/CS2 - they will (Adobe did something weird with that messed up importing actions made with older versions...) but I can't exactly remember how to do it.... i found the workaround on the net somewhere by searching on Google for photoshop's CS and actions not loading

[adrian tyler]

thanks tim, good news, i'll scout it out...

[Ed Richards]

Qimage is worth a try, esp. as it is a free trial. It does print time sharpening, based on the print size and the setting you give it. It has been critized for not doing a great job at scaling up digicam files, and that might be true, but I have good luck with it for large format black and white. I find I can get a good looking image in many cases with no sharpening other than Qimage. In this sense I am trying to use it to restore the sharpness lost in scanning, but not to enhance the sharpness over that in the negative. Since it sharpens differently based on output size, you do not need to tinker with the file for each print size.

[Kirk Gittings]

Rob, Obviously, I was not talking about mathmatics as a subject of art. I was talking about a sense of sharpness being defined by "5 lp/mm range (1/10 mm at final print size) ". The next phase of the discussion would be about how that relates to view 24" of viewing distance and then his eyeglass prescription blah blah.

In the 4 university art departments that I have been involved in, I have seen some interest in mathmatics as subject mater by professors (2), but like most art of that type it was based on a very dilitant level of understanding that may have been visually interesting, butreally about intellectual posing.