| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/03/2006 07:29:14 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
Does anyone here use selective sharpening techniques? |
The easiest way that I've found is to sharpen as much as I want the sharpest part to be. Then set my history brush marker to the history step *just before* sharpening. And then with the history brush set at about 30-50% I go back and paint back (i.e. "undo" the sharpening) all areas that I don't want the extra sharpening. Especially edges that have halos around them.
This, of course, only works for advanced editing challenges.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 12:29:55.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 07:49:13 AM · #27 |
even when I oversharpen my entries to where I hate them, I still get "gee this seems kind of soft" in my comments
The full size resolution is very crisp, I've been lucky enough to be able to buy the best lenses out there, I've got a "pretty" good camera - so I continue to be puzzled by this same thing.
I scale the image for web, and I've tried additional high pass layers, USM, and smart sharpen in various forms after I scale and still get the "gee I wish this was in focus".
I see the images that I want to emulate in sharpness - I guess I have no idea how to get there.
I'll watch this thread with great interest - thanks to the OP for bringing it up.
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 12:50:04.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 07:54:55 AM · #28 |
On my current FS entry I edited full size to where I thought it was pretty sharp and in focus. Resizing and posting it I realized that it was soft and not nearly what I had in large format. A quick USM on the resized (95/.5/1) made a huge difference and got it back to where it was at large if not a tad bit better. And at least one commentor found it to be "crisp".
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 07:57:53 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
even when I oversharpen my entries to where I hate them, I still get "gee this seems kind of soft" in my comments
The full size resolution is very crisp, I've been lucky enough to be able to buy the best lenses out there, I've got a "pretty" good camera - so I continue to be puzzled by this same thing. |
How many of your images are shot on a tripod ? Zooms vs. primes make a big difference too. As does how you resize and resharpen an image. Do you sharpen after you bring it in to your editing software, then sharpen it creatively, then sharpen it for your output target (after resizing). That's a fairly normal sharpening workflow.
Capture sharpening
Creative sharpening (e.g., tweaking eyes)
then output sharpening.
About my best example of good image sharpness.
Right kind of light to give sharp results (side/ raking)
Right kind of lens to give sharp results (prime lens)
Right aperture to give sharp results (couple stops down from wide open)
Shot on a tripod.
Sharp enough ?
Message edited by author 2006-11-03 13:05:58.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:01:49 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by nards656:
What determines "oversharpened"? Is that another arbitrary standard imposed / controlled / influenced by eyes and monitors? How would an oversharpened photo print on paper?
Thanks for all the responses, by the way. I'll try to remember to repost the photo after voting, or maybe I'll find one of my old ones with such a comment. I'm pretty sure they're there, somewhere :) |
You should sharpen entirely differently depending on the output target.
Continuous tone printers need different sharpening than inkjet printers, need different sharpening to glossy paper, needs different sharpening to fine art paper, needs different sharpening to large web display, needs different sharpening to small web display.
And that's even before you start thinking about the actual image. Fine detail needs different sharpening to lots of wide details, which needs different sharpening at higher or lower ISOs.
There isn't a one size sharpens all answer.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:14:47 AM · #31 |
I have actually set up two types of monitors to be able to view the entries on both to try to see what others might be seeing. I̢۪ve finally decided that when you get 4 comments that say it̢۪s too sharp along side 4 comments that say it̢۪s not sharp enough. You are in the DPC zone.
;-/ |
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:24:48 AM · #32 |
I also caught you are shooting RAW. Realize you have to sharpen RAW more than a JPG because you have no in-camera sharpening happening.
I sharpen almost all my entries in 3 passes. One right when I open the file (from RAW), one after resize at the end, and another large radius USM at the end.
It is also potentially a product of your lens (although I didn't look to see what you were using). A soft lens will need too much USM to try to bring it to tack sharp standards. The picture will look oversharp in an attempt at compensating for the soft lens. This is especially true if you find yourself shooting at the extremes of either the zoom or the aperture.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:26:00 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
even when I oversharpen my entries to where I hate them, I still get "gee this seems kind of soft" in my comments
The full size resolution is very crisp, I've been lucky enough to be able to buy the best lenses out there, I've got a "pretty" good camera - so I continue to be puzzled by this same thing. |
Sharp enough ?
|
Yes! Quite sharp indeed. How does it look resized to 640 for challenge entry output?
Note - bold emphasis added to first quote.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:27:49 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by digitalknight:
even when I oversharpen my entries to where I hate them, I still get "gee this seems kind of soft" in my comments
The full size resolution is very crisp, I've been lucky enough to be able to buy the best lenses out there, I've got a "pretty" good camera - so I continue to be puzzled by this same thing. |
Sharp enough ?
|
Yes! Quite sharp indeed. How does it look resized to 640 for challenge entry output?
Note - bold emphasis added to first quote. |
It looks just as sharp. Thing is, you can't add sharpness back in if it isn't there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:30:44 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
It looks just as sharp. Thing is, you can't add sharpness back in if it isn't there in the first place. |
Originally posted by digitalknight:
... The full size resolution is very crisp, ... |
I think it's the process of getting down to the 640 size that may be messing him up.
|
|
|
|
11/03/2006 08:33:44 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think it's the process of getting down to the 640 size that may be messing him up. |
Yup, though I can throw that particular picture through pretty much any of the resample methods in photoshop and it still looks as sharp _without_ any after size resampling.
In fact, that particular RAW file, I don't add any sharpening to, because it ends up looking too sharp with almost any USM. Because it actually is sharp in the capture.
Normally, though, I bicubic resample then sharpen.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2006 03:14:56 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
There isn't a one size sharpens all answer. |
I understand that particular statement, but every tutorial I've ever seen about sharpening basically says "do it till it looks right". There's no structure to that. Some of the responses in this thread have been to make multiple passes. I understand that, but how much each time? Should I basically just sharpen, as Cindi says, too much and then back it off slightly each of the three times? The recommended Canon sharpening of 300,0.3,0 straight out of the camera is confusing because it's basically invisible, but yet it's recommended. That flies in the face of "doing it till it looks right" at all the steps in the process. Do I still need to do 300,0.3,0 if I am shooting RAW and sharpening pretty aggressively in DPP? What about noise? Doesn't sharpening enhance noise too? Why go to all this trouble to sharpen and then destroy some of it with Neat Image or whatever to get rid of the noise I just created with sharpening?
How many people out there are like me - don't have top of the line monitors, cameras, or software? Do they expect every image in the world to be razor sharp? Is it really a focus issue or is it a post-processing thing? Seems to me, from answers here, that it's mostly PP.
For photogs like me, who understand aperture/shutterspeed/ISO inside and out but still turn out blase pictures, are we better off just cranking up the sharpness inside the camera and shooting JPG so that we don't leave the viewers thinking we can't focus the lens?
The comment about the anti-aliasing filter make sense. I never have this trouble with film. Of course, my film shots were never the size of a screen, either, because I never did enlargements. 4x6s and 5x7s look pretty sharp no matter what, I think :).
I get the impression that I should sharpen MORE for internet viewing than for print, because printing is inherently sharper than a screen. Is there agreement on that?
Gordon, I regard you as one of the most PS savvy guys on the site. I understand there's no clear answer here, but are there any steps I can take to help make sure that my stuff doesn't appear OOF? Obviously I don't want to oversharpen, but are you saying that for web use it's wiser to push it toward that end of the spectrum?
Thanks all. |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 03:47:55 AM · #38 |
If you do the canon recommended sharpness while viewing at actual pixels, you will notice a difference. And I notice it makes a noticible difference when printing images larger than 8X10 (I typically print at a minimum of 8X12). If I have no choice but use a noise reducing step, I tyipcally do it after curves which I typically do after the first sharpening step. Then, if for DPC, I do any clean up or additional editing, and resize for DPC. I view this at actual pixels and select my sharpening from there. Lately, I have been using something around 56%,.9,1 with smart sharpen. Stronger than I like, but seems to work. Certain types of images also benefit from an additional 'contrast sharpening:' 18%,55,0. I play with the sliders on the last two steps, usually moved in opposite directions - greater %, lessen amount and vice versa. The sharpening is really dependent on the image. Images with lots of fine detail look horrible sharpened at the same amount as low detail images. It also makes a huge difference if you sharpen after resizing - you want to sharpen for the end result not for an in between state.
Just my way of doing things and you'll have a 100 people give you a 100 other ways. None of them are right or wrong. Its all individual taste. Find what you are comfortable with and work from there.
BTW - I looked over some of your portfolio and I find your images sharp. But what do I know - I'm often told mine aren't. :) |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 04:15:58 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
My monitor has a sharpness adjustment. I have lowered the setting as it seems DPC commenters believe my images aren't sharp enough. Nevermind that they print beautifully sharp, they aren't sharp enough for DPC.
But, when I believe I have oversharpened, I pretty much stop getting the not sharp enough comments and will get an occasional oversharpened comment.
You can't win. I have noticed that, unless the subject is either in complete focus or the DOF is so short its unmistakable, you will get not sharp enough comments from someone. And on the same image, a comment on its sharpness. |
Sharpening is fundamental yet one of toughest things to get right.
First off, sharpening for a print is different than it is for a DPC web graphic. That is why if you sharpen for printing it will not be right for DPC web graphics.
It should not surprise you at all if you have a special sharpening setting set on your monitor that things may look right on your monitor but not on other people's monitors.
But beyond that you have issues with individual images, like camera shake and wind that will affect focus and require special attention. There is a delicate balance between sharp and over sharp. It is easy to cross the line.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2006 04:17:44 AM · #40 |
For DPC I do not sharpen the big image. It comes unsharpened from the RAW file into PS (via Nikon Capture). After doing everything I want to do with it I usually do some contrast sharpening, like 10-20% on a 50px radius.
After that the file is resampled to the size needed and only then finally sharpened for the output (web/print).
For DPC I use a base setting of 150% 0.3px for files between 400 to 800px on the longest side. Sometimes followed by 80% on 0.3px with some history brushing etc.
All sharpening is done on the lightness channel in Lab mode, never directly on all RGB channels. To some extent it prevents halo's and unwanted changes in color. You can take the sharpening a lot further without messing it up.
I do feel I take it a bit too far sometimes, but it depends on the monitor I'm looking at. Usually the comments are "sharp" and hardly ever -I cannot remember- "oversharpened".
|
|
|
|
11/04/2006 04:28:23 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I think it's the process of getting down to the 640 size that may be messing him up. |
Yup, though I can throw that particular picture through pretty much any of the resample methods in photoshop and it still looks as sharp _without_ any after size resampling.
In fact, that particular RAW file, I don't add any sharpening to, because it ends up looking too sharp with almost any USM. Because it actually is sharp in the capture.
Normally, though, I bicubic resample then sharpen. |
Would you please tease us with a 100% crop and no sharpening? I'm always interested in having a metric to compare my lenses to! Thx in advance.
Message edited by author 2006-11-04 09:28:34.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2006 04:28:46 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by m2iw:
[quote=idnic]... Next time, try setting the resampling to bicubic sharper. I think you'll see a difference. |
For those that don't know, "bicubic sharper" is a newer resampling algorythm available in Photoshop CS and CS2. If you don't use either of these products this statement makes no sense.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2006 04:34:26 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
Does anyone here use selective sharpening techniques? |
I do. It will come in one of two forms:
1-Add a layer mask to a sharpened layer and paint with a black or grey brush to reduce sharpening to specific areas.
2-Use the sharpen tool (very gingerly) to increase local sharpening in selected areas.
For DPC purposes these techniques are allowed only in 'advanced' editing.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2006 04:59:42 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by stdavidson:
Originally posted by Tlemetry:
Does anyone here use selective sharpening techniques? |
I do. It will come in one of two forms:
1-Add a layer mask to a sharpened layer and paint with a black or grey brush to reduce sharpening to specific areas.
2-Use the sharpen tool (very gingerly) to increase local sharpening in selected areas.
For DPC purposes these techniques are allowed only in 'advanced' editing. |
I use the very same techniques. I also use radial gradient quick masks to force focus (sharpness) in specific areas. |
|
|
|
11/04/2006 05:21:09 AM · #45 |
nards656, I looked at some of your photos and many of them look fairly sharp, but there are some that you seemed to have gotten very close to your subject or have zoomed in a lot. On these shots I wonder what aperture you were using because I think you have a very shallow depth of field which may give a soft look to the shot. Also on a few of your shots you have saturated a bit much which can cause things to bleed over a bit and make it appear a bit out of focus. On your best scoring shot it looks fine, but on your four best shot the red either reflects a bit in the wood or you have saturated a bit much. Also the bit of glare on the wood could also make it seem a bit blurry.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 09:19:54 AM · #46 |
Here is the completely unsharpened RAW file. Just resized to 640x480.
This is a whole lot less sharpening than it possibly even needs, but just to show the point I was trying to make.
Remember, this is just the RAW file opened, without any sharpening applied, then resized (with Bicubic smoother interpolation algorithm)
then saved.
Click on the thumbnail for a larger version. This is as straight from the camera as you get, probably even more straight than it should be, given the AA filter effect and so on.
And here's a link to a 100% crop from the unsharpened RAW file, it is a 500k download:
Hopefully this gives some illustration to the point I was making. Sharpness happens before the shutter is pressed, you can't add it in later (though you can enhance what was there)
For comparison, here is the same shot, with a bit of 'capture' sharpening added - that's after the RAW file is opened, before anything is done to it, and then bicubic smoother downsized, then sharpened for web output:
Again click on the thumbnail for the larger version.
Message edited by author 2006-11-05 14:25:25.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 09:30:04 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by Gordon:
There isn't a one size sharpens all answer. |
I understand that particular statement, but every tutorial I've ever seen about sharpening basically says "do it till it looks right". There's no structure to that. Some of the responses in this thread have been to make multiple passes. I understand that, but how much each time? Should I basically just sharpen, as Cindi says, too much and then back it off slightly each of the three times? The recommended Canon sharpening of 300,0.3,0 straight out of the camera is confusing because it's basically invisible, but yet it's recommended. That flies in the face of "doing it till it looks right" at all the steps in the process. Do I still need to do 300,0.3,0 if I am shooting RAW and sharpening pretty aggressively in DPP? What about noise? Doesn't sharpening enhance noise too? Why go to all this trouble to sharpen and then destroy some of it with Neat Image or whatever to get rid of the noise I just created with sharpening?
How many people out there are like me - don't have top of the line monitors, cameras, or software? Do they expect every image in the world to be razor sharp? Is it really a focus issue or is it a post-processing thing? Seems to me, from answers here, that it's mostly PP.
For photogs like me, who understand aperture/shutterspeed/ISO inside and out but still turn out blase pictures, are we better off just cranking up the sharpness inside the camera and shooting JPG so that we don't leave the viewers thinking we can't focus the lens?
The comment about the anti-aliasing filter make sense. I never have this trouble with film. Of course, my film shots were never the size of a screen, either, because I never did enlargements. 4x6s and 5x7s look pretty sharp no matter what, I think :).
I get the impression that I should sharpen MORE for internet viewing than for print, because printing is inherently sharper than a screen. Is there agreement on that?
Gordon, I regard you as one of the most PS savvy guys on the site. I understand there's no clear answer here, but are there any steps I can take to help make sure that my stuff doesn't appear OOF? Obviously I don't want to oversharpen, but are you saying that for web use it's wiser to push it toward that end of the spectrum?
Thanks all. |
You shouldn't be able to 'see' sharpening, other than in a side by side comparision (e.g., flick back and forth between those two samples below and you'll notice it get sharper, but I hope you can't see any of the sharpening I added.
Also, print output typically requires a lot more sharpening than web output. Web stuff should be sharpened so it looks right, print output should be sharpened so the print output looks right, which due to ink bleed and other process factors, ends up looking far too sharp on a screen. It depends on the paper/ ink/ printer used.
Originally posted by nards656:
s it really a focus issue or is it a post-processing thing? Seems to me, from answers here, that it's mostly PP.
|
I'm afraid I think this is completely backwards too. You can't add sharpness to an image that doesn't have it. You can maintain the sharpness that was in the original through to the final output/ print.
There are things you can do to enhance apparent sharpeness - local contrast enhancement etc, but these don't help prop up a blurry original.
The shot I've mentioned a couple of times in this thread isn't even as sharp as it could possibly be. The shutter speed was a bit low and the light was pretty dim.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 09:32:40 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Also, print output typically requires a lot more sharpening than web output. Web stuff should be sharpened so it looks right, print output should be sharpened so the print output looks right, which due to ink bleed and other process factors, ends up looking far too sharp on a screen. It depends on the paper/ ink/ printer used.
|
That's an interesting concept. I have found just the opposite to be true with my printing vs web sharpening.
|
|
|
|
11/05/2006 09:44:26 AM · #49 |
| I get that on most of my images. I also find it strange that if you look at amazing pics from the past none we the crisp/sharp deal that we see here... Oh well.. |
|
|
|
11/05/2006 12:58:09 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Also, print output typically requires a lot more sharpening than web output. Web stuff should be sharpened so it looks right, print output should be sharpened so the print output looks right, which due to ink bleed and other process factors, ends up looking far too sharp on a screen. It depends on the paper/ ink/ printer used.
|
That's an interesting concept. I have found just the opposite to be true with my printing vs web sharpening. |
That's what I see from the results I get in photokit sharpener
For the same output size, web images need less sharpening than print images.
|
|
