Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 38

Thread: Good Sharpening

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: Good Sharpening

    Perhaps with good reason, some are wary of "canned" methods, because some photos are unique and (especially with Large Format) we usually prefer that they not look contrived after sharpening - as ic-racer has described so concisely.

    The stated goal of the technique outlined in the video, is to sharpen selected parts of the tonal range - in order to avoid sharpening artifacts - but it's a rather circuitous approach.

    You might like this simpler and faster method which also gives greater control: Sharpening the Dark and Light Layers Separately.

    With respect to the Zone System, we might call it "Zone Sharpening" because we can sharpen any section of the tonal range to taste - separately - or not at all.

    It's not a complete approach either: we often need to sharpen selected regions of the image (and ignore or even blur other areas), as Peter has explained. As with everything else in Photoshop, there are many ways to get there.

  2. #12
    おせわに なります! Andrew O'Neill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Coquitlam, BC, Canada, eh!
    Posts
    5,136

    Re: Good Sharpening

    A much better solution than what I was always doing. Thank you fo sharing, Ari.

  3. #13
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    6,286

    Re: Good Sharpening

    Ken, I always enjoy reading your tech page, and I like your method of sharpening as well.
    As you said, there are many ways to get there.

    Andrew, my pleasure; my knowledge of the "how" in PS is increasing, but my knowledge of the "why" has remained the same.
    I never would have figured out this procedure on my own, and I don't know why the Alpha channel can be tossed afterwards, or why it's even there to begin with.
    But, this sharpening method is certainly more refined than what I was doing previously (just the unsharp mask), and gives a subtler effect.
    I had to find something since I gave up FF DSLRs, and sharpness on a $500 Lumix is a bit wanting.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    5,506

    Re: Good Sharpening

    Hard to talk about sharpening strategies where large format negative, FF DSLR, and micro four-thirds cameras are discussed together. Each format requires a different approach.

    I personally find PhotoKit Sharpener2 a good piece of "canned" software that will usually give faster/better results that I can achieve on my own without a huge amount of time. This software has numerous types of sharpening routines, and most are accompanied by different layers that one can change by increasing or decreasing the effect. There are also different routines for capture, creative and output sharpening. With PK Sharpener, and other sharpening methods, it is important to evaluate results looking at the image file at 100%.

    Image files of large format scanned negatives, and good medium format negatives as well, often need little sharpening, almost none if the scan is made with a high end flatbed or a drum scanner. With these type of image files I typically use PK Sharpener with a small amount of initial capture sharpening, and then no more sharpening until printing. Output sharpening is an unsharp mask with a low amount/high radius routine that often looks something like this.

    Amount = 10-30%
    Radius = 90 pixels
    Threshold = 0 levels

    Sandy
    For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
    [url]https://groups.io/g/carbon

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Re: Good Sharpening

    Quote Originally Posted by sanking View Post
    Hard to talk about sharpening strategies where large format negative, FF DSLR, and micro four-thirds cameras are discussed together. Each format requires a different approach.

    I personally find PhotoKit Sharpener2 a good piece of "canned" software that will usually give faster/better results that I can achieve on my own without a huge amount of time. This software has numerous types of sharpening routines, and most are accompanied by different layers that one can change by increasing or decreasing the effect. There are also different routines for capture, creative and output sharpening. With PK Sharpener, and other sharpening methods, it is important to evaluate results looking at the image file at 100%.

    Image files of large format scanned negatives, and good medium format negatives as well, often need little sharpening, almost none if the scan is made with a high end flatbed or a drum scanner. With these type of image files I typically use PK Sharpener with a small amount of initial capture sharpening, and then no more sharpening until printing. Output sharpening is an unsharp mask with a low amount/high radius routine that often looks something like this.

    Amount = 10-30%
    Radius = 90 pixels
    Threshold = 0 levels

    Sandy
    I agree, I started using PKSharpen II a couple years ago. I always thought I was pretty good at sharpening manually, at least I put a lot of time and effort into it. But I think I get better results with less time and effort using PKSharpen II.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    Re: Good Sharpening

    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Computer graphics are great. When he was finished it did not look anything like a photograph taken with film and printed on photographic paper.
    You're viewing it on a computer monitor so it's pretty hard to tell what the printed image looks like. There's usually a pretty big difference between viewing an image on a low-resolution device like a computer monitor and seeing it in print.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  7. #17

    Re: Good Sharpening

    I'd suggest that vid as a way to spark ideas more then a strict workflow, there are refinements to this that are critical for me. The old Bruce Fraser Creative Pro article is a must as well. Just for starters, converting in and out of LAB is lossy... there are better ways.. if you do this on a separate layer, but use luminousity as your blend, same thing and helps eliminate added color noise. You also than have a lot of blending options.. that's one thing just for starters...

  8. #18
    bob carnie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario,
    Posts
    4,939

    Re: Good Sharpening

    moving in and out of LAB is lossy?? could you elaborate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Boley View Post
    I'd suggest that vid as a way to spark ideas more then a strict workflow, there are refinements to this that are critical for me. The old Bruce Fraser Creative Pro article is a must as well. Just for starters, converting in and out of LAB is lossy... there are better ways.. if you do this on a separate layer, but use luminousity as your blend, same thing and helps eliminate added color noise. You also than have a lot of blending options.. that's one thing just for starters...

  9. #19
    Unwitting Thread Killer Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    6,286

    Re: Good Sharpening

    In the video, he suggests using LAB, RGB or whatever, but switching to CMYK before printing.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Re: Good Sharpening

    I too have read that LAB is a relic of earlier generations of Photoshop: for these purposes anyhow, there is no longer a need to convert in and out of it.

    Conversion to and from LAB is a destructive or "lossy" operation. Unlike an operation performed on a layer, a conversion changes the original data or pixels (once you save the file).

    How noticeable the image degradation will be, is another question. I presume that an instrument would detect the changes - because the actual data has been changed. A file "diff" tool would detect the differences too, since that's what we're talking about: re-writing the data, not appending a filter to it.

    If we converted and image back and forth many times, a human eye would eventually see it too. It might show up on a big histogram. Monitors don't always show us the subtle details, so it might take a while before anything "visible" emerged.

Similar Threads

  1. Sharpening
    By mdm in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 15-Dec-2011, 18:26
  2. Sharpening tools
    By Big Fish in forum Image Sharing (LF) & Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 8-Jul-2010, 14:14
  3. wet mounting and sharpening with cezanne5500
    By hbjornson in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-Mar-2008, 15:53
  4. Sharpening for big prints(30x40)
    By Adam Kavalunas in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19-Nov-2006, 10:25
  5. Imacon Sharpening
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-Dec-2005, 15:07

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •