Micro Contrast with Unsharp Mask in PS

[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.