Jump to content

question re Out Of Gamut / Sharpening Workflow


Recommended Posts

questions arose from my reading/playing with this excellent, but perhaps out-dated Bruce Fraser article:

 

Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow - CreativePro Network (find using Google).

 

My main question has to do with ideal step sequences ...as well as steps that can or will not conflict.

 

In other words, which steps should come first and which can be combined using NIK....which can combine steps that may not ideally be combined... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capture sharpening first, applied to master image.

Creative sharpening optional.

Output sharpening based on size and output specifics.

All outlined in the Fraser article which isn't outdated; that sharpening workflow IS built-in to products like Lightroom and ACR.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dog, thanks. NIK is able to use mixed sequences in some situations but I'm not sure which situations...need to do more testi;ng...

 

Because it seems more efficient I use NIK with Photoshop rather than with Lightroom or ACR ...if I shot a lot of groups/portraits/kids or generic scenic/audobon photos I might revert to Lightroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by "mixed sequences."

 

Stripped to it's bare essentials, the Fraser's notion is that sharpening has three stages, but for at an even more basic level, it's two stages: sharpening so that the image looks as you want on the screen, and then sharpening again to compensate for the softening that occurs in printing.

 

If you sharpen in Lightroom, Fraser's distinction between capture and creative sharpening, which is standard in the photographic world, is really just a heuristic, not a real difference in the product. The reason is that Lightroom is a parametric editor, and the order in which you do edits has no impact on how the software does them. If you break your sharpening into two stages, capture and input, the rendered image will be exactly the same as it would be if you imposed the same sharpening in one step rather than two.

 

If you do all of your sharpening in Photoshop and Nik, this isn't true (leaving aside using the camera raw filter as a smart filter). Order matters in a pixel editor.

 

In practice, regardless of where I do the sharpening, I generally follow the three-step approach in that I use Lightroom as my raw converter and have the import settings set to impose a small amount of input sharpening. If I'm working in LR, I don't worry about when I apply the remaining sharpening because order doesn't matter. If I'm sharpening in Photoshop, I almost always apply creative sharpening, both global and local, and the end of the workflow because (1) it isn't reversible if later edits suggest changing it, and (2) I often like to compare approaches to sharpening--e.g., by having one layer with smart sharpen and one with high pass, and alternating between them.

 

I print from LR and find that its output sharpening is very good, even though it provides less control than Photoshop.

 

When I use NIK, I sharpen in Photoshop after accepting the NIK edits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have found that output sharpening, tailored to the medium, to be extremely useful. Prints from a color laserjet are marginally useful from Lightroom or Photoshop when adjusted for display or inkjet printing. Highlights tend to be dull and the blacks muddy. This is important to me because a laser printer is the only practical way to make covers for short-run CD and DVD jobs. I had much cleaner results converting to CMYK before printing. While all printers are CMYK, inkjets do a much better job than lasers translating from RGB. I found that output sharpening based on the exact size and resolution of the printer produced results as good or better than CMYK printing. I presume that selective sharpening reduces the overlap between pigment dots. CMYK works by using a separate black channel rather than "process black," which is the sum of CMY pigments. (If you look at the black channel, you find that it is used sparingly in the image, mostly outlines.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you mean by "mixed sequences."

 

Stripped to it's bare essentials, the Fraser's notion is that sharpening has three stages, but for at an even more basic level, it's two stages: sharpening so that the image looks as you want on the screen, and then sharpening again to compensate for the softening that occurs in printing.

 

If you sharpen in Lightroom, Fraser's distinction between capture and creative sharpening, which is standard in the photographic world, is really just a heuristic, not a real difference in the product. The reason is that Lightroom is a parametric editor, and the order in which you do edits has no impact on how the software does them. If you break your sharpening into two stages, capture and input, the rendered image will be exactly the same as it would be if you imposed the same sharpening in one step rather than two.

 

If you do all of your sharpening in Photoshop and Nik, this isn't true (leaving aside using the camera raw filter as a smart filter). Order matters in a pixel editor.

 

In practice, regardless of where I do the sharpening, I generally follow the three-step approach in that I use Lightroom as my raw converter and have the import settings set to impose a small amount of input sharpening. If I'm working in LR, I don't worry about when I apply the remaining sharpening because order doesn't matter. If I'm sharpening in Photoshop, I almost always apply creative sharpening, both global and local, and the end of the workflow because (1) it isn't reversible if later edits suggest changing it, and (2) I often like to compare approaches to sharpening--e.g., by having one layer with smart sharpen and one with high pass, and alternating between them.

 

 

Thanks for your detailed engagement with my question.

 

I print from LR and find that its output sharpening is very good, even though it provides less control than Photoshop.

 

When I use NIK, I sharpen in Photoshop after accepting the NIK edits.

 

For me, Lightroom is a distraction...but I do understand why many photographers favor it. NIK seems to offer more control (using sliders).

 

NIK is my front door for Photoshop. Because NIK is not reversible I work on a duplicate;

 

I rarely make a photograph without visualizing my own inkjet print, which is my goal (and is typically unlike reality, a postcard, or conventional portrait.). I often take a look at HDR ('single frame" version) just to see if it can increase a sense of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, Lightroom is a distraction...but I do understand why many photographers favor it.

In terms of sharpening workflows with raw, ACR is no different than Lightroom. You can apply capture and (limited compared to PKS II) output sharpening based on the capture sharpening, and the resolution of the image data.

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...