3 STEP SHARPENING

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by patricklavoie, Sep 24, 2009.

  1. Hi,
    I have written a small tutorial about Smart Sharpen couple years ago, and since i still receive a lot of email requesting it, i thought it will be a good idea to reposted it here. So here's the usual technique / way that one should do to get the best out of is images
    1_ Capture Sharpening is applied early in the image-editing process, and just aims to restore any sharpness that was lost in the capture process.

    2_ Creative Sharpening is usually applied locally to accentuate specific features in an image-for example, we often give eyes a little extra sharpness in head shots.

    3_ Output Sharpening is applied to files that have already had capture and creative sharpening applied, after they've been sized to final output resolution, and is tailored to a specific type of output process.
    And for the Smart Sharpen tutorial, just clikc on my name, request the file and i will send it to you. Why Smart HSarpen vs USM vs High Pass vs PK Sharpener..well because its free, its well done, and its the best way of doing a sharpen with Photoshop fast and effective without buying anything else.
    here's a quick example of smart vs high pass (USM would have give the same result as High Pass)
    *im open to all suggestion and newer technique, with example if you can would be the best.
    00UZQR-175315684.jpg
     
  2. WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING AT US?
     
  3. BECAUSE I LIKE IT.
    but other than that, have you something else to say to help other?
     
  4. No, I'm seriously asking you why?
    You obviously have knowledge to share and you write it up well, but with half a dozen threads IN ALL CAPS posted at the same time, you come off as somebody in need of a higher dose of their psychiatric medication. Which, I assume, is nothing like the case.
     
  5. honestly, because i like big heading for a title, and because it make my life easier on spoting where new thread have been post...kind of from where i can read.
    i offended you? sorry. Now let me know if those screaming title have make you stop and learn, and if you want to participate to help other..because after all, that was the first intention ; )
     
  6. I agree with Janne, Patrick. I thought this forum had been spammed when I first signed on. Please don't do it, even if that is at the cost of you not being able to do something you like. I honestly didn't even read this post because I was annoyed with having to look at all the threads you started, so right now I don't have anything else to say "to help other".
     
  7. What i find even more offending and disturbing, is when you share information with people but all they can do is complain about high caps title...without at least saying thanks for the infos. I get the idea now, thanks for the advice.
    mea culpa for the big title, i have just auto lapidate myself and im suffering like hell...now lets move along please and start sharing usefull information for the masses.
     
  8. See, I know it is one of Patrick's helpful, informative posts when he gives it an all caps title. The presentation might not be what others want it to be, but seriously- there is other things to gripe about... like in a few hours when someone posts "how do I get my pictures to look right on the web..." That's when we can complain about things.
    Otherwise,
    THANKS PATRICK!
     
  9. Hi Patrick. I have been a disciple of Bruce Fraser and use PK sharpen sometimes and Smart Sharpen for capture and USM for output when I want to speed processing. To all of those who are COMPLAINING about Patrick I have been follwing his posts for sometime and I have learned a great deal from him. He also possesses unique qualifications to say what he is saying as he does this professionally. Please send the file to me Patrick. I am sure it will be instructive and useful. Dick Arnold.
     
  10. Hi Patrick. I have been a disciple of Bruce Fraser and use PK sharpen sometimes and Smart Sharpen for capture and USM for output when I want to speed processing. To all of those who are COMPLAINING about Patrick I have been follwing his posts for sometime and I have learned a great deal from him. He also possesses unique qualifications to say what he is saying as he does this professionally. Please send the file to me Patrick. I am sure it will be instructive and useful. Dick Arnold.
     
  11. Patrick, I don't mind the large cap topic titles. I thinks its a good idea for the same reasons you gave. Wish I thought of that. I have a hard time locating topics I've participated among the sea of listings scrolling down the forum page.
    What I don't understand is why you continually require folks to contact you outside this forum when you could easily post your steps in this thread or just provide a link to the pdf so everyone can benefit. Not everyone wants to deal with email exchanges including myself. To me it gives the impression of some kind of marketing or trolling tactic for those new here. Remember not everyone knows who you are or are familiar with your command of image retouching and enhancement skills in Photoshop.
    IMO this vitriol response you've received so far maybe due in part that your approach just comes across as bad form. But hey, I'm just an old burned out ad designer/art director. What do I know.
     
  12. Good point Tim, i think after all i can just give the link here so people can served themself ; )
    I start doing this when i was giving action away, and never receive feedback from user, so one day someone suggest i simply get there email and ask them the feedback...
    so heres the link for the lucky one who will stop by the big title...
    I never tought about the marketing thing, but i can see your point, a good one my old burned out ad designer/art director internet friend ; )
    No its not a virus..its a zip file containing a PDF tutorial..you can download it.
     
  13. Hi Patrick, I honestly didn't notice until someone said something, I guess some are more sensitive about that and a little too much I might add. I was just thinking as I opened this how I always enjoy your posts and the fact that you are always willing to help people out, often at the expense of your own personal time. Thank you for that and keep it up even if your whole posts is in caps.
     
  14. Oh, just to get back on topic. Are your sharpening skills and techniques mainly directed toward fashion shots or does it work for landscapes which are a completely different beast all their own?
    Sharpening landscapes for viewing on the web offer different challenges because they encompass more detail and texture that must give the illusion of looking far in the distance as well as close up. I see so many landscapes on the web including my own that end up looking like paintings. Derek Von Briesen's shots of the Grand Canyon come to mind.
    I saw one of his shots in a discussion on PhotoKit Sharpener over at Luminous Landscapes years ago under the name dbreeze. It was breath taking viewing it at around 1200 pixels wide to the point I was experiencing vertigo. After finally tracking his name down and his gallery, I was crushed and disappointed at finding the rest of his Grand Canyon shots at reduced size for the web looked over cooked and crispy looking from being too sharp and over saturated.
    I find when sharpened and viewed at 100% on an LCD, landscapes are correct looking but don't look right when downsized for viewing on the web. I always find I do my sharpening until it's at this small size due in part to the way the LCD's sharpness makes all the detail equally sharp destroying the illusion of distance where it ends up looking like a painting.
    Your thoughts on this?
     
  15. Patrick, that pdf you linked doesn't have any images to show the results from applying your technique.
    Can you provide a version containing the images?
     
  16. 1_the pdf have image of before and after on the second page. But i can post later on a before and after here of the same image.
    2_Yes the technique i explain could be use for anything; car, face, nature shot...it the only method i ues to sharoen all my images. The trick is to be able to do it corectly for print AND for the web..the problem is people concentrate there effort for the print, and use strange technique for the web, and i agree many image i see on the web are over sharpened..because the photog have no or limited knowledge on how to do it, or have a latop monitor and decide to create his web version looking at it on that monitor most of the time less sharp than a equivalent table monitor...
    It is really important that all your sharpening are done at 100% at first, and with taste. Then you add some more to certain area only depending on what you do;
    eyes, lips, hairs for portrait
    metal, logo, leather for car
    trees and rock for landscape
    for example.
    than the last sharpen should be doen on a copy of the original and apply at the FINAL step and at final size. You plan of using a image on your web page? you need a 800x600 only, then first downsample the image to this size, then apply sharpen minimaly just to regain the lost sharpness.
    Have a look at my web site, you should see sharp images withotu the usual oversharp problem.
     
  17. also, buy using mask you could create dimension on your sharpening..for example; when i retouched lansdscape image, i first apply a general sharpen to the whole image, but with the use of mask later on, i will only put the focus on the trees, or grass, or rock at different level of strenght and opacity...never add anything to the sky in this second run. Then the last step could be a simple 1-2% overall just to regain sharpness lost due to the downsampling.
    let me see if i can find something in my perosnal file that i could post and try to demonstrate my point. (if you have one with textured like a canyon or similar i would be please to work on it quickly, send me a raw or a unsharpen jpeg if possible so i can start from the beginning)
     
  18. Patrick, FWIW (oops, was that screaming? Sorry!), I read upper case titles as instructional in nature, so it works for me.
    I have purchased a number of third party tools and then wondered why I bothered. I didn't think they did as good of job as PS. What do you think of a multi-phase sharpening technique? I sharpen, as you suggest, right from the scan, but I go light. Then, as I work through the image, I'll resharpen with smart sharpen, as I see the image needing it and as I understand the image more. Then I give it a final shot at the end, after it is sized. Do you think a multi-phased approach is legitimate? I don't see it degrading the image at all.
    Another consideration is the difference in format sizes. A larger format scan can be sharpened a lot more.
     
  19. I think its good, it sound like the 1-2-3 method Bruce Fraser explain, and the method i was using by instinct..meaning, step one sharpen is just aims to restore any sharpness that was lost in the capture process. tehn step 2 to enhance some aprt, and step three to make sure that your original look sharp when view or print, depending of the media use.. a glossy surface will take less sharpen then a matte one like a artist paper or a paper that contain a lot of cotton in it.
     
  20. Patrick, this is what I get viewing in Preview, Mac OS 10.4.11.
    00UZXc-175359584.jpg
     
  21. 10.4.11! dam you know Snow Leopard is out and cost 29$..so many problem with 10.4.11 that just reading about it start a headache LOL.
    cant say..i use acrobat reader..could it be a problem with Preview..just try it with reader and all is fine. Use the tutorial without images for now, i will post a before after shot later on here.
     
  22. And just to show you what I was talking about concerning sharpening landscapes for web viewing, below is a screenshot from a 25% view within ACR 4.6 using ACR's default sharpening settings.
    As you can see at this small size it still ends up looking like a Robert Kincaid painting without any additional sharpening. Compare it to the 100% view on the right. If I were to sharpen at that view which appears to need it, the web size version would look even worse. I see quite a few landscapes look like this on the web and it frustrates the heck out of me.
    If you see something different on your display then it could be a calibration issue on my part, but I just did a hardware calibration just several days ago on my G5 iMac.
    00UZXz-175363684.jpg
     
  23. i offended you? sorry. Now let me know if those screaming title have make you stop and learn,​
    Actually, no, they didn't make me "stop and learn".
    I had a look at one of them, because I saw four ALL CAPS titles in a row, and wanted to see what all the shouting was about. I had a look at this thread, and noted that you have some sort of annoying "holier than thou" attitude. You take the position that your posts are so enlightening that you alone have the right to SHOUT AT EVERYONE.
    Noting this, I'm quite inclined to put you on my list of people to never read. Have a nice life.
     
  24. Patrick, I have no problems with OS 10.4.11. What was your main gripe about that version that prevented you from seeing WYSIWYG on your display or images appearing correctly from a general sense? I don't see how that would cause images from not appearing in a pdf viewed in Preview. I download many pdfs that contain images and view in Preview with no problems.
    What makes your pdf so different from others? Are you saving in a certain way or is your server the pdf resides on corrupting things?
     
  25. just a joke Tim..comon, not you also?.. os 10.4.11 have been knowed to have some general problem with printer and small thing..i never experimented any of those personnaly..was just joking..just joking. Preview is a very well done and capable free software.
    My pdf is not made different other than a added security i think, add by the editor to restrain change / editing or print..not sure? Have you try with acrobat reader just to see and compare? I open it with Snow Leopard Preview..all seem good.
    Other user have problem with it?
    00UZYl-175365584.jpg
     
  26. How many time should i excuse myself?
    Peut etre que de le dire en français (french) peut aider? excusez moi.
    En espagnol (spanish)? disculpe me
    Im sorry for the other nationality, i dont speak anything else other than those 3 ones..
    at least, Joseph, if you put a sentence up, use the whole one..its less offending i think when the whole phrase is there ; )
    Now let me know if those screaming title have make you stop and learn, and if you want to participate to help other..because after all, that was the first intention ; )
     
  27. If everybody were to use uppercase for title of OP, then perhaps Patrick might start using lowercase to stand out. (That would not be any better though.) What this site, for that matter any web forum, needs is a killfile-like facility -- The Killer App.
     
  28. Sorry I didn't get the joke. Haven't ever found OS and upgrade issues quite so funny and this issue about your pdf's not showing images on my system has been an ongoing problem in the past on the same subject that it's frustrating the heck out of me to the point it's just tiresome and becomes a waist of my time. Hope you can understand.
    I don't have Adobe Reader and don't plan on installing it. I opened your pdf in CS3 and it shows the images but now the background is transparent so the type is unreadable.
    Can't you just provide a direct link to the pdf instead of putting it in a zip file? What is with the zip file thingy? I never see pdf's on the web encapsulated within a zip file. They're always provided as direct link with the ".pdf" extension clearly seen when clicking on it in the browser.
     
  29. Patrick, please don't take other peoples extreme view of things to heart. You contribute much and often to the forums here and your word is golden to about %99.99999 of people who read here (even when folks don't necessarily agree with you, you're well respected). Folks like Mr. Wisniewski should grow up a tad and learn to 'get over it'; i'm hoping he is just having a bad day and isn't like this all the time.
    Thanks for the sharpening tips. I'm concerned about Tim Lookingbill's comments regarding sharpening of landscape images - the way i'm reading his statement he feels that if sharpening is applied prior to resizing and then again after, that images become overly oversharpened? Is this really true for images to be displayed on the web? I would guess, as in many things that different outputs would require at least slightly different workflows, so perhaps the 3-step method won't work quite so well for downsized web images?
     
  30. Thank you very much for making this tutorial available. I look forward to trying it out and comparing to my existing process this weekend.
     
  31. Patrick, as far as I'm concerned YOU CAN SHOUT ALL YOU WANT
    although in some cases it will fall on deaf ears.
    00UZck-175387584.jpg
     
  32. and for those who take offense
    00UZcv-175389684.jpg
     
  33. PATRICK.! THANKS FOR THE TUTORIAL! I REALLY ENJOY WHEN PEOPLE COME AND GIVE US SOMETHING HELPFUL.
    AS FOR THE CAPS. THEY ARE JUST CAPS. I CANT HEAR THEM. CAN YOU?
     
  34. is this can qualify as a *landscape* images? ; )
    sharpen apply 700 px wide.
    00UZek-175401784.jpg
     
  35. Hey, I am just looking around here, and too many of you guys need to get in touch with reality- your sick- thanks for the effort Patrick, but evidently you had better watch your key pad, CB
     
  36. Patrick. A serious point. I have seen two or three posts lately by self-styled experts that state that sharpening should only be done as the last step in the process. I don't like arguing on PN so I just ignored these comments. So I am happy that you posted your piece. I downloaded and read it and I come quite close to what you recommend. DICK ARNOLD
     
  37. Patrick, Why should the first step not be done in ACR?. Many people seem to recommend it. The latest versions seem to give adequate control.
    Peter
     
  38. Thanks Patrick....or THANKS! Always nice to try new processing ideas.
     
  39. I like the SMART SHARPEN version better.
     
  40. THANKS PATRICK, FOR HAVING A CIVIL, SHARING DEMEANOR! HEY, CAN YOU "HEAR ME KNOW". Wow, that's called shouting, actually I can read it a lot better, as I don't hear a *&%#'d thing. I rarely post anything here due to the moaners that complain about trivial stuff as this. Thanks for the help. Much appreciated.
     
  41. THANKS PATRICK - OH AND THE PICTURES SHOW UP IN THE PDF FOR ME. :)
    Using 10.6.1 here.
    Permanently ignoring someone because they unapologetically put some caps - only in the title! - of a thread strikes me as much ado over nothing, but that's just me.
     
  42. Patrick, thanks. I've been using PK for a long time but I'll definitely try your method.
    Now, I imagine Smart Sharpen uses a different algorithm and does not create halos so you don't need all those complicated masks that Bruce Fraser described in his book. I also remember that Bruce was not very enthusiastic about Smart Sharpen. He writes in his book that he would only use it for output sharpening. Could you comment on that?
     
  43. Thank you very much for the PDF - it was very helpful, very well written information. I appreciate the effort that it took to create.
     
  44. Hey, thanks for the sharing Patrick. I downloaded the PDF and was pleasantly surprised to see the pages of a Photolife sitting on my shelf. Thanks again, and feel free to shout as often as you'd like.
     
  45. I didn't know this was TYPEFACE.NET ;)
    Nice tutorial Patrick. I was not aware of all these different kinds of sharpening methods as I am still a beginner. I just use LR2's sliders for Sharpening, Clarity and a bit of Vibrance and save those settings as different presets, e.g., landscapes, portraits etc. using different values for the sliders. Is that an OK method?
     
  46. Patrick, thanks for the tutorial! Just out of interest I would also be curious to hear why capture sharpening should not be done in a raw converter. Is it there a practical reason or is it a fundamental thing?
    Allard
    PS this thread once again confirms that even though IMO you are one of the most knowledgeable and sharing persons in this community you are also very good at misleading people to believe you are just an arrogant bastard.
     
  47. Allard K [​IMG] , Sep 25, 2009; 01:10 a.m.
    Patrick, thanks for the tutorial! Just out of interest I would also be curious to hear why capture sharpening should not be done in a raw converter. Is it there a practical reason or is it a fundamental thing?
    Allard
    PS this thread once again confirms that even though IMO you are one of the most knowledgeable and sharing persons in this community you are also very good at misleading people to believe you are just an arrogant bastard.​
    I'm sad to admit that I originally felt this way about the fellow. He's been nothing but gracious in sharing information.....and he can fight in a pi$$ing match with the best of them!
     
  48. Thank You for sharing, Patrick. a s l a
     
  49. Patrick I barely know you but what I do know is that you took time out of your day to offer assistance to people in an area where there are tons of questions and too few to offer good advice, often. To anybody and everybody who took the time to get on here and whine about his use of all caps I say this: You didn't have to open the link, and you definitely didn't have to waste our time with your panny anny pissing and moaning about "etiquette" as you think it applies here or anywhere for that matter. Save your keystrokes for something that might make a difference in the world of an amateur photographer, if you have the knowledge or skill to present it with any conviction as Patrick does. You guys are the reason I don't really look at Photo.net any more with all of your holier than though grabasstic blubbery. Grab a camera and do something worth talking about and leave the computer to grown ups who wish to teach and learn. You must lead some very sad lives. Thanks Patrick for taking the time to help us that wish to learn and ignore the ingrates who don't have enough positive things to tie up their sad existence. Douchers.
     
  50. @Peter/ The first step could be done of course in ACR / Ligthroom. I just find it difficult to get fast and excellent result when you have to play with 4 slider for the regular joe who use those software. Did it give you better sharpen? According to my personal test, and my small experience with those slider, i say i have try a lot of combination and for all the trouble (trouble for me is when you need to fiddle with 4 slider for more than 10sec) i didtn see anyhting spectacular vs using PK Sharpener ($) or the free excellent Smart Sharpen. And also, im so use to do it as my first step in Photoshop that i simply do it there with a action, since most of the time if not all the time, the first sharpen is the same number for me.
    @Sam/ Youre right, smart sharpen dont create halo and problem if done with a commen sense and taste, and in case of theyre is the advanced tab (not use often) that could protect those problematic area..but i used it once or twice since i use smart sharpen. As for Bruce Fraser, i have a incredible respect for this guy since Photoshop 2..yeah 2 not CS2 ; ) when i was barely reading english, it was the guy i follow like is shadow over a 28k modem! I dotn recal having read that in is latest and last book, but i think he was also a owner / creator of PK Sharpener (along other well knowned person i respect) so i think it could be hard for someone to say that is baby is not better than another one...
    I have test PK Sharpener at the best of my knowledge and many more paid plugin and free solution, and in the end i didtn see how they where superior vs Smart Sharpen, and since they where not free most of the time for the same result i didn think of talking about it. For me it is so simple (as you can see on my tutorial) to get result with SS that its really hard to see something else to replace it..as today ; )
    @Allard and others/ thanks for the good word. Im sure some day i am a arrogant bastard, by choice or by motivation..or simply the way i express myself in this second language..sometime it come out wrong vs what i really want to say.. but its not a ego trip or a better than you thing.. it is because most of the time i simply say it as it is, and sometime people have difficulty with direct oppinion. Im sorry for the future time where i will be a arrogant jerk ; )
    On a side note, i have little respect for people who just give s*** to someone without contributing anything, here or in real life. Specially after you make good information available to them.
    I will repost the pdf version of this tutorial right here, i received so many email in 24hre that i need to create a automatic response!? so heres the link to this PDF and if it doestn work, theres a link higher in this thread where you can download a zip file containing the pdf.
     
  51. here's a before file at 100%
    00Ua11-175559684.jpg
     
  52. and here's the after file.
    00Ua14-175559784.jpg
     
  53. I always apply my filter at 100% view on screen, then i reduce it after to 50% view to see if its enough for inkjet printer, and i reduce it to 25% view if the file gonna be print on a fashion magazine. If the file look good at 50% on my NEC, i could say it will look good printed on epson luster paper.
     
  54. oh, and heres one with the highpass filter..can you see the difference ; )
    00Ua1F-175561584.jpg
     
  55. Thanks Patrick. This tutorial just helped me figure out why I was seeing too much pixelation in some of my low light shots after resizing and sharpening in the one step "Unsharp Mask" mode. I'm a newbie at this and couldn't figure out what the problem was. Some of us have a lot to learn and instructional tips like this are appreciated. Again, thank you.
     
  56. Take it for what it's worth. I found the information interesting. Thanks Patrick. Whether the title is in upper or lower case; who the hell cares?
     
  57. Hi Patrick,
    For what it's worth (FWIW shouted) I don't get all this business about the negativity about your posting.
    For me the content is the most important thing. You emailed me sometime ago with this process, and is indispensible.
    Keep up ithe great work with informing people, the way you see fit!
    John
     
  58. Thanks for all your posts, Patrick.
    If this forum were more actively moderated we could have sticky topics like the tutorials you put together.
    I think routinely reposting with a title in caps (and maybe preface [TUTORIAL] would help people separate this from the endless string of repeated questions normally found on this forum.
    Keep it up and those of you who are "critics," please post your own tutorials if you have any expertise to share.
     
  59. Sharpening within the Raw converter can be problematic depending on the brand of converter used. Each have their own internal algorithm for interpreting the demosaicing pattern to come up with a preview you see on your screen. Some Raw converters can show pixel for pixel representation with worts and all of the Raw data and others sort of clean it up a bit like ACR which uses a proprietary unknown to the industry algorithm that can render a clay like texture to high frequency detail if sharpening is applied too much.
    This clay like texture is reduced or amplified more or less depending on the distance of the subject to the lens and the resolution of the camera's sensor. If the detail is far enough away it will get softened a bit and the texture isn't as obvious. If shooting ground detail like small rocks, leaves and blades of grass 10-20 feet from the lens, then this texture tends to show up viewed at 100%. BTW this texture can't be seen on a print but on an LCD it can be quite obvious and annoying.
    You'll note that Patrick's 100% view sample shot shows no clay like texture because the model has a lot of fine detail that is made up from what I'm assuming is a higher resolution camera maybe several feet from the subject. If I was to take that shot with my 6MP Pentax K100D DSLR at just the right distance the result would be obvious. See below as an example.
    00Ua5C-175589584.jpg
     
  60. Thanks I'll print this out. I hate unsharp mask !
     
  61. here the technical info for those interested..i always forgot to post them, but will gladly do it ;
    The portrait have been shot with a Canon 5D (not the mkII) with a 70-200 f2.8 in studio, f11 with the 70mm 100ISO to be exact.
    Here's the full uncropped frame, reduce to 700pix wide with Bicubic (no smoother or sharper)
    "What! you dont use Bicubic Sharper to reduce your images?" nope. following the methode i use as per my tutorial if i was using the bicubic sharper method my file would have this out of this world over sharp look.. a common mistake among user. Bicubic Sharper is good when you have a soft focus image or when you dont apply the correct amount of sharpen along the way.
    00Ua5d-175593584.jpg
     
  62. heres another one from my small G9.
    first a 100% crop
    00Ua64-175595584.jpg
     
  63. and the full frame version of this crop.
     
  64. oups..sorry..the image
    00Ua6H-175597584.jpg
     
  65. Patrick, what Raw converter did you use and what were the sharpening settings if any?
    I've seen this shot of the model before in past tuts you've conducted and it never ceases to amaze me how well rendered it is. It's like you can reach in and ask her for her phone number. Yow-Zah!
     
  66. Thanks for bringing this back up, Patrick. Even for folks who don't routinely adopt all of the steps, it's worthwhile learning for people who want sometimes to squeeze the last ounce of quality out of their pictures. I'm also glad to see the late, great Bruce Fraser is still getting credit for some great work on this topic. For the interested, one of his articles is here :

    A couple random thoughts and opinions:
    - When sharpening for output, I find that I undersharpen if I view at 100%. Viewing at 50% (at least as related to inkjet output) works much better for me. It's hard for me to adjust to knowing I should make it "crunchy" on screen.

    - I understand some resistance to editing like this. The three-stage sharpening presents for many folks a serious workflow problem. It's impractical when dealing with a large number of images, which is where programs like Lightroom really excel. The sharpening routines there are actually pretty good. What they lack is the specificity of control that a robust, multi-stage workflow offers. That, in turn, is great when a single picture or smaller set of pictures merits the attention, of course.

    - In the pdf, you mention saving as a pdf file and then as a TIFF. At this point, doesn't saving as a TIFF also allow you to get back into the sharpening controls for the other layers? Are there specific steps in here that don't save in a TIFF file? (TIFF vs. PSD seemed to have gotten controversial a little bit when someone (Schewe, maybe?) posted that PSD is a crappy format, not that file format issues are really the point of this thread.)

    - I'm a little surprised that you say using Smart Sharpen is rarely advantageous. Are there cases where you still control the highlight and darken side of the sharpening separetely, or does that not come up in your work?

    Personally, I do still find that being able to fade the highlight and shadow side of sharpening can be useful or even necessary for some pictures and uses. Most of the time that pictures appear oversharpened, it is the highlight side of the sharpening that creates the visible problem. In those cases, using the Advanced Smart Sharpen can be useful. (I still sometimes use an antiquated method of sharpening on two layers, one set to Highlight and the other set to Darken Blending Mode. That gives me pretty intuitive (to me, anyway), visible "handles" to control the application of sharpening. I find it easier and stronger than Smart Sharpen, but maybe I never learned to use Smart Sharpen well.)

    Anyway, just a couple opinions from a random observer.



    p.s. Yes, I do think that the all-caps headlines seems like saying "HEY LOOK AT ME! HEY LOOK AT ME!", and if everyone all-capped the titles, the page would be harder to read. But I also think that being rude about it is, well, being rude. So, moving on...
     
  67. p.s. The sharpening on the portrait does bring out netting well.
     
  68. THANKS PATRICK
     
  69. @Tim/ Lightroom was use, or ACR i dont remember at that time..depend of when the picture was taen vs when lightroom was release.. But for the past 2 years a exclusively use Lr without any sharpening. All my sharpen are done later in Ps.
    @Marshall/ I reread the PDF, and what i meant is this..well exactly what i had writen ; )
    " Before flattening my images, I always make a copy that includes all the layers in PSD format. That way, I can go back to the adjustments made as needed. Once the file is flattened, you have to rename it (so as not to save it by mistake over your PSD copy). I add the suffix ‘flat’ to my flattened images and save them in TIFF format with LZW compression, which reduces by half the weight of the image without losing visual quality.
    In addition, a TIFF file can be opened using almost any image-editing software, which makes for an excellent saving format." So saving a TIF for me just indicate that this file is ready to be send and that this TIF have been cropped and sharpen accordingly.
    I dont think its a bad or good format, for me a PSD is where all the recipe is done, a TIF is a flatten copy of this PSD, and a JPEG is made from it for web, powerpoint, client approval or to be print externaly.. i dont think any format is a crappy format.
    i dont recall saying that Smart Sharping is not advantageous? maybe you mean the advanced tab in the Smart Sharpen? I dont really use it or have use for it, maybe im just lucky? but i never find my image to have problem in the dark or light area enough to use the advanced button. Im sure for some it will be a obvious button to press, but for me it never really served even if i test it in many situation.
    I respect any oppinion from any kind of user, this is how you can grow and be able to determine what is best or not. Im a very curious person, but not technical like Tim or Andrew when talking about color management, delat E and other related stuff (nothing to do wiht the subject for now) or the why behind the effect..thats why i respect everybody, because i can learn from anyone. the only thing is i have the chance of doing this for a living, and i have the chance to test those method on hundred of images per month, so i can see if the recipe work well once in a while or everytime, and for me, the smart sharpen method just work.
     
  70. Hi Patrick,
    1. I am not bothered by your UPCASE letters
    2. The tutorial is very neat, thanks for sharing!
    3. In terms of image processing, sharpening is always based on enhancing amplitudes of higher spatial frequencies (=the details) in an image. Usually this is done with high-pass filters (hence the name), or applying thresholding to image contours (=Iceberg effect). I guess most photographic software use adjustable versions of both things. However, as far as I know, you cannot squeeze out more details than a 3x3 highpass (Laplacian operator). However, this usually also increases the visibility of noise. And, with a single image, there is no way to create details which have not been there before.
    4. Upon downsizing (e.g.for web) you lose the higher spatial frequencies. Thus, if you enhanced these frequencies before, then you won´t see any effect. Furthermore, in order to avoid aliasing effects, you have to apply some sort of low-pass filtering to the image before down-sizing. Depending on whether the algorithm optimizes this filtering operation as a function of target size, you would need to do some detail enhancement on the down-sized result or not.
    5. In the end, everything boils down to basic signal processing and mathematics, and there is no magic involved in neither technique. The magic is usually equivalent to no-information, as often the mathematical details of sharpening filters are not visible to the software user.
    Regards,
    MS
     
  71. Thank you Patrick. As always, I appreciate and respect your input. It is easy to see here those who have small minds. Please don't stop teaching.
     
  72. Yes, Patrick, I did mean the Advanced tab of Smart Sharpen. Sorry for the bad edit. Thanks for the response.
     
  73. Thanks Patrick for sharing this tips.
    Very helpful for me.
     
  74. Very nice article and tips and other stuff (actions, etc.) Thank you for sharing.
     
  75. Hi Patrick,
    I do not own CS2, but own Adobe Elements 6 and Capture NX2. Can this be done with the software I own? Also, with NX2 I always shoot in the RAW and work from there, finishing off any sharpening at the end of the process, as well as using appropriate picture control from my camera, the D700 (ie. DXMODE1) or (VIVID) for ie., depending on what I am shooting, in camera PIC CONTROL is initially applied. If not, I adjust from the software to what I desire. You state in the article, "Remember that you should never add digital sharpness with help from a Raw conversion software or with your camera". If that is what I am doing with using Picture Control with my camera, or with NX2, then I am doing this wrong! Please advise. Thank you for your advice. And personally, I do not mind the CAPS at all! :)
    Carol C.
     
  76. Very good Patrick! Thank you!
     
  77. Hey...Just as a contrary comment:
    Wouldn't it be nice if you could buy one decent, easy to use piece of software that does the job really well. And I don't mean anything from Adobe. They're robbers and their stuff is only 90% of what you want. Compromises in RAW conversion, expensive, difficult to learn, licensing regime sucks, needs add ons...where does it stop? I suppose that's too much to ask?
    I do Nikon raw conversion to TIFF in Capture NX2 and tweak in BreezeBrowser Pro. Do I have to learn 3 stage sharpening with yet another piece of software? Pretty soon I'll be spending more time on the computer than I ever spent in the darkroom.
    Anyone feel the same?
     
  78. I think people are too thin skinned regarding CAPS or non-caps. The CAPS are just another shorthand way of expressing oneself like LOL and IMO. They are not really screaming (I HAVE NEVER HEARD A CAP DO THAT). They are however, a little bit difficult to read over an entire paragraph.
     
  79. Thanks, Patrick, for the very helpful writeup. I do have a couple of comments.
    1. I don't know for sure whether Bruce Fraser is the originator of "three-step sharpening," but he certainly has contributed a lot on this. I don' t know if he influenced you. In any case, especially since he's died, I want to give him some credit in this area. I find his book "Real World Sharpening with Photoshop CS2" invaluable. Available used.
    2. Output sharpening should always be done at final resolution and optimized for the output medium. This is the solution for the comments above about sharpening for the web. Reduce to final resolution (e.g. 700 pixels wide for photo.net) and then sharpen at 100% so it looks good on the screen. Don't just take your high-res print-ready file and reduce pixels for the screen.
    3. Bruce says, "with files for printing, the correct amount of output sharpening will look awful on the monitor; find what works, and don't try to judge it on the monitor." That matches my experience.
    4. FWIW, I like the capture sharpening I'm getting in Adobe Camera Raw.
    Patrick, I like your images, the demonstrations you've done with them, and the tutorial comments. Thanks for sharing it with us. (FWIW, the .pdf works fine here.)
     
  80. @ MS Keil:
    I think (but do not know for sure) that Smart Sharpen is based on a deconvolution algorithm, not a high-pass or Iceberg. I would be curious to know if this is true and if so, what point spread function they use for 'lens blur'. The lens blur filter has many configurable options.
    I know there are raw converters that can apply custom vignetting and distortion corrections based on exif data (lens, focal length & distance, aperture). In principle you should be able to do something similar for sharpening. But you would have to know the lens PSF. Since that is mesaured by (some?) optics companies when they produce MTF graphs, this data should be available somewhere. So you should be able to tune the sharpening to the lens imperfections. That would be a pretty cool feature, at least in theory. I would not know if it would really be much better than what is already available.
    Sorry for getting a bit technical...
     
  81. Kindly do not upset or criticise my friend Patrick in any way. I like him and he can do anything he likes - well almost.
     
  82. Anyone feel the same?​
    actually not quit. Let me try to answer that from a personal perspective. Some 15 years ago I invested four years of my life to study photography. When a few years ago I started with digital I had to delve into image processing which this time I did myself and that took and takes time.
    While nowadays I do spent a lot of time behind my computer I did spend a lot of time in my darkroom as well. In both cases a single print can be produced rather fast while in others it can take up to hours. In that sense I do not see a lot of difference.
    If plug-ins are really necessary is a matter of debate. Some will indeed make life somewhat easier.
    PS is certainly not the easiest programm to get into I'll grant you that but for anyone who starts out in wet work it's not all that different, at least if you want to achieve top technical results.
     
  83. Very helpful article. I'll definitely try out your suggestions, Patrick.
    Thanks.
     
  84. Patrick, as always, thank you for all the help you offer.
    i recall you helping me out with this issue a while back, and from the info i have from the time, upon adding the initial sharpening amount of 125%... then doing the work, you had then told me to add the 75% when most editing is done. bringing the total amount to 200%.
    do you suggest that i no longer do that? and do what you suggest in your most recent article on sharpening? where you say one should add another 125%
    thanks
     
  85. Interesting article. I'm always trying to learn more about the mysteries of sharpening. I was surprised that you used the same sharpening tool for all three stages. I would have thought that there might have been some fancy input or output tool that's better suited for its own stage.
    Can this process be duplicated (or approximated) in Lightroom? LR2 offers sharpening input sharpening, "creative" sharpening in the Development module (which looks a lot like an Unsharp Mask), and it offers several output sharpening presets. Have you compared the result of Lightroom's sharpening tools to this method?
    Je voudrais vous remercier pour l'article intéressant.
     
  86. This thread is hilarious, sadly. Half of the posts are harangues about using capital letters, and then apologies for using those capital letters, and finally apologies for being mean-spirited about Patrick using capital letters. And what was the point of the thread, oh yeah, SHARPENING!
    BTW, haha, thanks Patrick!
     
  87. Stephen...
    I do Nikon raw conversion to TIFF in Capture NX2 and tweak in BreezeBrowser Pro. Do I have to learn 3 stage sharpening with yet another piece of software?​
    I'm afraid so.
    Maybe it's just the way I learend, but I tend to be more fond of small, optimized pieces of software than large, monolithic ones. PhotoShop is like the ultimate evolution of the Swiss Army Knife to me, I often can't find the right blade or tool on it, and when I do find the blade, it's too short and not sharp enough. I do the classic three-step sharpening with three pieces of software.
    • Capture - nothing does this quite as well as a good raw converter. That's where the sharpener has access to information about pixels and lens, and the linear data that makes the math work best. I'm most likely to be doing this in LightRoom.
    • Artistic (what Patrick called "Creative") - for that, you need to really be able to select what you're sharpening. Masking eyes for one set of sharpening adjustments, other masks and other settings for hair, teeth, eyebrows, etc. So a good tool for this step needs versatile masking and layers. Not sure about "Breeze Browser", but PhotoShop has good masks and "Smart Sharpen" is certainly adequate for the job.
    • Output - there's just no comparison, Qimage is the best output sharpener, it knows how to sharpen nicely for particular printers and sizes, and it integrates the output task into a framework of functions aimed solely at output.
    You can use PhotoShop (either ACR or Smart Sharpen after raw import) for the capture sharpen, but it won't match a raw converter. And you can try to buy an output sharpener "blade" for the PhotoShop "knife" like NIK Sharpen, but that's a kludgy mess that can't match Qimage.
     
  88. This surprisingly got me very curious. So I spent a lot of time testing this and found something quite interesting. Before I start, Patricks post opened up some options for me so for that I am greatful. I like DPP and the way it converts. With a calibrated work flow its real good. I like the colors and I like the way it renders my RAWS. I shoot Adobe RGB in RAW, my workspace is set to ADobe and my monitor is set to my calibration profile so I know exactly what I am seeing. Its canon rendering the file in matching colorspace and using my profile for the monitor so I closely match what Canon says it produced. With LR for example, it uses only Pro Photo Adobe so it can render quite differently.
    What I found was Smart Sharpen does do a very very good job. Compared to all other sharpener other than DPP, I like this best. I also did a trial version of PK Sharpener to test against my prefered RAW converter(DPP) and Smart Sharpen. I will post 100% crops of 4 images. Not sure how they will post but I will try to make it easy. I agree with Joseph that nothing beats a good RAW converter...in Canons case the DPP factory software has proven yet again its the best converter. In the DPP version, I like the way it renders the colors slightly better. IMO< the DPP software keeps a more natural skin tone and brown in the ey(of my pics psted) than Adobe does. Adobe renders the skin with more brown than recorded and the brown in the eye turned slightly greener than DPP's version. I prefer DPPs render.
    Sharpening....the DPP version was done straight out of the camera As Shot, Standard Picture Style and Sharpening set to default 3. The Smart Sharpen version was just Smart Sharpen at 125% and thats it.
    The PK Sharpener....well this is interesting.
    When viewed at 100%(which the crops are and all 4 are exact because DPP allows pixel demension and X-Y pixel location so all are exact) the eye lashes take on an effect that looks like they added specs or grain I guess to give them the appearance of sharper and more resolving power...at 50% it looks right. At 100%, you see the false pixels or whatever they are, none the less, the eye color and lashes have a gritty appearance. Keep in mind, all this is done at 100% to even be able to see the difference. In some cases, it takes 200%, so its really pick your poison.
    In the end, I find that the differences are very very negligable and not noticable unless at 100%. That said, I damn sure aint paying for additional software to do what free DPP does. So out with PK Sharpener.
    Further more, I wont be loading 200 images into PS for smart sharpen either(speed of batching). DPP is just fine apparently if no serious editing is needed. If you nknow you will be doing some serious retouching etc, the PS will be the tool and use Smart Sharpen in place of DPP capture sharpen so you dont need more programs. If the photos are fine, DPP will do.
    It batches easily and from this test, renders the files as good as anything can possible render them. Also, when RAWS are opened in DPP, they already have a pretty close look to them(if shot right) so its just easier. The only thing I can complain about in DPP is that the reds often smear. Look at the full size files and the red shirt in PS has way more detail vs DPP....that said, the shot wasnt about shirt detail. The point of focus was right on so.....
    00UaeP-175855584.jpg
     
  89. Smart Sharpen
    00UaeR-175855684.JPG
     
  90. PK Sharpener set to Wide Capture. Notice the gritty look in the color part of the eye and lashes I spoke about.
    BTW, none of these are sRGB. They look a little off casue all were output with Adobe ICC set. OOPS
    00UaeZ-175857584.JPG
     
  91. Camera RAW default set for my 1D Mark III
    00Uaei-175859584.JPG
     
  92. You may not be able to see the differences here in the crops displayed this way....which makes my point that its really not that noticable.
    For me, opening all 4 of these crops in a program like DPP where they can be toggled thru quickly will allow you to see the difference.....almost like mouse over then. Save them and try it.
    If anyone requests, I'll upload the full size JPEGS that was made for this. Its not a very good shot in general. Technically its perfect...focus and exposure was spot on as shot which is why I chose it for the testing.
    It was made while just sitting around at mother in laws house after sunset, so it wont be a model shot in netting like Patrick's so:)
    But until then....
     
  93. Joseph? you remove me from your black list of people you wont read? good to know... ; )
    Im very curious about the statement that " nothing is better than the raw converter to do the first sharpening" can you post example of your sharpen method vs no sharpen in raw and apply a 150%-200% with smart sharpen on a unsharpen raw..i will really appreciate it, because for me, using Ligthroom or DPP vs Smart Sharpen i find the Smart Sharpen faster and simplier and i get th same or better result...so im wondering?
    thanks.
    ____
    I will answer all the others questions Monday morning..im off for the weekend ; )
     
  94. Have a nice weekend, Patrick. As a psychologist I can assure you that if you help people they like it but if you really help them they don't like it and if you really, really help them then they crucify you.
    I might write something about the psychology of photography if any interest is expressed. I have been lecturing and working in Child and Family Guidance and psychotherapy for 50 years and families and people still manage to confuse me and surprise me.
     
  95. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Few points. Before Bruce passed away, he did a lot of work examining Smart Sharpening and didn’t find anything compelling to it for introduction into PKS (you all realize that everything PKS does is 100% Photoshop driven).
    I’m not sure the logic or rational of using PK Sharpener set to Wide Capture on the example above. Nor did I see if this is just capture or both capture and output sharpening for this exact web size. The entire idea is to use both capture and output sharpening in two rounds.
    The manual states clearly:
    Each Capture Sharpener set contains four effects, tailored to emphasize different edge widths, and labeled SuperFine Edge Sharpen, Narrow Edge Sharpen, Medium Edge Sharpen, and Wide Edge Sharpen, respectively. (The sole exception is scanning backs, where the images are so clean that thereʼs no need to emphasize edges and downplay non-edges.)
    Choosing between these four flavors of sharpening is not an exact science (if it were, weʼd have a less-ambiguous naming convention), and is to some degree a matter of taste. In some rare cases, applying Wide Edge Sharpen to an image with tiny details may obscure rather than reveal them, and applying SuperFine Edge Sharpen to a head shot may over-emphasize skin texture, but on the vast majority of images the differences will be subtle, and a matter of nuance rather than “right” or “wrong” sharpening. The following examples, however, may provide a general rule of thumb.​
     
  96. Very helpful information, Patrick. In some ways it confirms my own casual observations garnered from years of trial and a lot of error, especially regarding sharpening at stages usually considered wrong according to conventional wisdom; and the differences between sharpening for onscreen and print display. Your explanation helps sort out how and why it works better than most tutorials I've read over the years.
    By the way, the appropriate way to post attention-grabbing thread titles is like our weekly Nikon forum photo display threads: Nikon WedNEsDAy PiC. For reasons that escape me this random capitalization style has captured the fancy of hundreds of participants who, honestly, ought to know better than to actually enjoy and even have fun with photography.
     
  97. To Patrick. The Smart Sharpen sample was Zero in RAW capture from DPP and one round of SS at 125% and cropped as shown. They are very very close with the slight edge going to DPP, but really only seen when toggling back and fourth at 100%....so pretty negligable really They both produce great results. If I had to pick another over DPP, it would be Smart Sharpen. Glad I have been introduced to it as a good alternative.
    I still say use DPP because it took just one program to get the same effect it took with 2 using SS. Yes you could do the SS to the RAW in CS4, but then you have the Adobe RAW conversion which I stated I prefer the DPP better. If I have additional work to do on the image, I will most likely use this method instead because you need only one program then. As stated, I generally only need DPP, I try to get it right in camera, so not much adjusting.
    To Andrew, I really tried all of the PK Sharpener settings in Capture and found that the wide was better suited for this image over the others. I viewed at 100% and 200% looking for every ounce of improved resolution/sharpness over the other. I used DPP to toggle back and fourth thru the 4 capture settings in fast sequence to see any difference and everytime, the wide setting prodeced the best eye lashes and eye detail over all of them. The first 2 really didnt sharpen the eye lashes much at all.
    I think what was going on was the line of lashes was deemed an edge and was sharpened more in turn looking better and keeping the skin texture from being over sharpened. But as posted above, all setting applied this grit like texture to the color and lash area of the eye, which I dont like. At 50% its stillnoticable and normal view mag. its not noticable at all.
    So then we come back to...is it worth opening PS and running a 2 layer mask action 3 times just to sharpen an image? No, I have nowhere near the time for that. Its just not logical. I'll use Smart sharpen instead...besides, IMO it looks better and way faster....and free. And, you can also get the same PK effect by doing Patricks method anyway, and its free as well.
    On the step process, no these are one step only. Just capture with RAW capture at zero. I did the 3 step process following the manual and it produced a way oversharpened look. The eyelashes took on oversharpened cruchy look that in no way looked life like. It looked cooked to me. I am posting the crop of the 3 step process done exactly like the manual and using the Narrow as you mentioned. The PK setup will probably produce good prints, due to the need to oversharpen images for print, but for anything else, its too much. And I can get good sharp prints without the use of this PK Kit. I'd bet I can get a very good print with just a capture round of SS at 125% and an output round at 25% without any creative needed.
    I want to say this without sounding disrespectful to the older crowd that I know are very good at photography, but I am starting to see a common denominator amongst older photographers that have been at this a while. I think their age and deteriated eye sight leads them to oversharpening images. Because all the tutorials I have read by these guys always displays way crunchy looks. And I think because of the experience level of them, it leads less experienced users to think that its correct. You know...if Bruce Fraser says it, it must be correct. But I dont know, just my opinion.
    Its all subjective anyway, but I think most and that includes me strive for images that have a real look, with plenty of bite that doesnt look cooked. Like it or not, most images are web use and they need alot less sharpening or otherwise your customers think they'll get cooked prints. I do very little sharpening for web images so they look as real as possible, then once they decide on prints, I reprocess those with intention of printing, over cook a little...but know the customer will never see the image I cooked for print.
    00Uaoq-175955584.JPG
     
  98. I'd bet I can get a very good print with just a capture round of SS at 125% and an output round at 25% without any creative needed.​
    I did it. DPP set to 3. Made TIFF, loaded TIFF into PS, added one round Smart Sharpen at only 40% and look. I bet thats as good as you need. Maybe a little more for large print. And this took 30 seconds tops...including the crop for web post here.
    00Uap2-175957584.JPG
     
  99. I want to say this without sounding disrespectful to the older crowd that I know are very good at photography, but I am starting to see a common denominator amongst older photographers that have been at this a while. I think their age and deteriated eye sight leads them to oversharpening images.​
    Yeah, ya know if you had some better creds as a photographer that statement might have some relevance but alas, I don't think you are seeing any trends perhaps your own lack of understanding?
    Really, if you know what you are doing, you would realize that in order to have a properly sharpened image for print, the resulting image will look vastly over-sharpened on screen. Fact is, looking at an image on screen is a terrible way to evaluate a digital image...if ya wanna know what it'll look like in print, print it (after sharpening the crap out of it).
    If you wish to advance your knowledge of the subject, I suggest you read this "The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online"
    Seriously, looking at anything at 100% zoom is pretty much useless...what matters (and is really, really difficult to show on the web) is what does it look like in print?
     
  100. Patrick, what are your thoughts about doing initial "sharpening" (in CS4) on RAW files by tweaking the "clarity" setting? I seem to remember reading that clarity, by adjusting the mid-tones, is somehow superior at least to the sharpening option in the RAW conversion stage.
     
  101. Yeah, ya know if you had some better creds as a photographer that statement might have some relevance but alas, I don't think you are seeing any trends perhaps your own lack of understanding?​
    Jeff, what do you know about my creds. I understand clearly. I understand oversharpening for print, I stated above that I do that myself. I know that the print loses sharpness unless over sharpened before hand. Theres a big difference in oversharpened that looks oversharpened and oversharpened that looks like cooked crap.
    Patricks example here shows an image thats close to ready for print, if not already, yet his doesnt look bad. Following the steps in the PK sharpener manual, you get cooked crap as shown above. Eye lashes become blobs of black dots instead of lines of hair. Maybe thats what some peoples idea of sharp is, but mine is a sharp image that looks as clear as it does in person and hair that still looks real. But, not everyone sees images in real life with clarity. It took glasses for me, which was my point.
    And I'm not in business to print 11x14s of every image just to know how it looks in print. Its extremely wasteful and expensive, but then again, this isnt hobby for me, its my business so I have to keep tabs on waste to survive. I develop a feel for what looks right, then add a touch more sharpening for the print once I have determined I will be making a print of that image.
    If you wish to advance your knowledge of the subject, I suggest you read this "The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online"​
    Really, are you kidding. I read his stuff quite often. And he's refering to looking at down sized web images of 800pixels wide to compare resolution of a lens or camera vs another. If you take a Canon 1DsIII and use a Canon 300mm f2.8L IS and compare the Sigma version of a 300mm f2.8 in terms of resolution, I promise you a 100% view of those full resolution images will tell you all you need to know. Yes, downsized web images are no test, but dont kid yourself. It doesnt take a 20x30 print on $100 off of a $100K Inkjet to see the difference. I love a good print as much as the next guy, but its not sensible to do that in real world. And like it or not old timers, digital was brought about for this purpose. Viewing without needing to print every image you take. Speed in sharing images etc. Like old guys complaining about the onset of fuel injection in automobiles. Took my grandfather 10 years to get the fact that a fuel injected truck would start without issue in 20deg weather where his carburated truck needed you to pump the gas, screw with the choke and freeze to death all just to get it to idle.
    I'm looking at full resolution images here Jeff. And at 100% its a pretty damn close representation of what the image will or can look like in print. And its aweful funny how he and some others on the web can be one way one day, and another on day 2. I read his Leica S2 review and he gawked at 100% until he messed his pants. So dont let his 90 year old man rant fool you. Theres not a lot of people who make a living selling 20x30 prints of a farm field for thousands of dollars in an art gallery either. That guy will run off a 10ftx20ft print of his dog drooling just to do it. Most business owners cant and dont do this. They are too busy selling wedding images or school senior portraits or product adverts etc.
    Give me a break. Patricks method is about all that needed at even the extremes. The simpler method in most cases will suffice.
     
  102. Rob, sorry, I know this is intended for Patrick, but yes, sometimes clarity can produce enough apparent sharpness without the need of cooking images in a sharpening machine. Its all about apparent sharpnes to the eye. What appears clear and sharp. Sometimes its a clarity bump, sometimes just a contrast bump, sometimes sharpening if those wont do. Sometimes its all of the above.
    Id play with it. If you like it, its good. I have done this in many cases. Just a quick clarity bump does it without adding sharpening which can increase noise sometimes. I find it great for brides in wedding dresses. It increases detail in dress without sharpening the whole image.
     
  103. Silly question, but why separate capture and output sharpening? Why not do them both as a last step? Creative sharpening is clear (pardon the pun), but I'm missing the point on the value of separating capture & output sharpening, except to have a 'good' image to work with, but technically I'd think the result is the same if it's done once. No?
     
  104. David thanks.
     
  105. It would have been easier to print this without the ridiculous kvetching about capitals that could just have easily been in a different, relevant post.Since this is a topic that concerns other posts by the same author, that would make more sense and wouldn't have wasted many readers' time.
    Anyway, Patrick, you mentioned in the document "Remember that you should never add digital sharpness with help from a Raw-conversion software or with your camera." I use Adobe Lightroom with RAW (oops, raw) photos, which has its sharpening feature built in. Do you know if this uses the same engine as Photoshop or a different one? Thanks for the post and doc. Ray
     
  106. Ziggy, I kinda wonder the same thing.
    So I did that. And it made no difference. It didnt matter what step I did color, cropping and sharpening. The exported files showed no difference whatsoever. I looked at even 200% and there wasnt 1 pixel that was different no mater if the total sharpening was done first, last or split into "capture first, then color and crop, then "output sharpening. It really is personal preference. And just becasue Bruce Fraser says do it in 3 steps and no RAW capture sharpening, doesnt mean thats correct. Just because he is Bruce Fraser doesnt mean everyone else is wrong and hes the only right way.
    You know, the ancient greek thought the world as flat, until Pythagoras said I think iits round. It took almost a century for someone else to go against the grain and say that Pythagoras was right and everyone else was wrong. And look. So if you know something works for you and you cant find any logical reason to believe your thinking is incorrect, then go with it. Look at Patrick. He followed Bruce. But he clearly states that he cant see a benefit to PK Sharpener vs Smart Sharpen based on his tests. And hes right! Lets all remember...while Bruce was indeed very knowledgeable, he wasnt the be all end all and also.......he was trying to sell his program plug in ok.
    Just like Ken Rockwell. That guy will talk digital is great till the cows come home, but when he needs to make a film statement, then its all digital is *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#* and film rules the world. BS! There isnt a 35mm film out out there these days that can show superior over 35mm digital. Example look here There are even examples of the 8mp 1DII even beating film, and his film was bigger than 35mm. Its clear whats better. But ask a 75yr old film guy and he'll swear its not possible. And that who are you gonna believe, Ansel Adams or a 29yr old man that uses digital. How dare anyone argue with Ansel. But hey, I dont care, my eyes clearly tell me whats superior, not what someone else tells me is superior.
    It makes no difference. Now, if you downsize an exported file after all its adjustments, you do need to resharpen the downsized image. I'm talking about taking a full size image and resizing for web at say 1024 pixels wide. That image needs resharpening. But for those who say sharpening always has to be done last, nonsense. It didnt matter in my work flow the least. Because its all cumulative. It doesnt matter when you add all your adjustments, if they are all the same numbers, the exported file will be exactly the same. LR for example will make the adjustments you applied to the expoted file in the order Adobe deemed ideal. Now some like to go ahead and add sharpening first, becasue they cant work on a dull file, but this is just personal preference, not right or wrong.
    Ray Yes, Lightroom uses the same engine as PS. Its all ACR so long as its the same version ACR the defaults it sets is the same..
    Now for Patricks workflow, its a bit different. What he is saying(Patrick, hope I'm not butchering this too much) is for "his" type workflow, you dont add capture sharpening i RAW. Reason is for one, his tutorial shows that his flow involves adding the 1st round of Smart Sharpen at 125%, then making a background copy, addig another 125% to that copy which would in deed way over sharpen the whole image, so he then adds a mask to the new background layer and only allows the 2nd 125% to show where he wants it to show(i.e eyes etc creative sharpening), then once he likes that, he flattens those layers. So in reality, the only parts of the image at this point that has a total of 250% SS, is the eyes or where ever he unmasked. The rest was covered by the mask and shielded the 2nd round of SS at 125%. So the flattened image now is sharpened as a whole by Smart sharpen for a 3rd round....but only at say 25%.
    So the whole image technically only recieved say 150%, but the eyes receieved 275% total including all three rounds.
    So by that process, had you added sharpening at RAW conversion, his method would be too much, because it was sharpened already going into his 3 step process.
    For me, I think you could do RAW sharpening as capture, but just tone down the Smart Sharpen process you do so its not too much. But I think Patrick likes to work the other way. I personally think that capture sharpening should be done in your RAW converter. Thats when its the best. Especially Canons DPP, as in my examples, it does the best job at applying the sharpening. So for me, I say let DPP do the capture to give me what the file was intended to look like. Then I'll just sharpen that to taste or media.
     
  107. @Allard K
    Inexcusable omission from mine, of course I forgot the whole bunch of deconvolution algorithms. With EXIF you should have the necessary data to parameterise the deconv-kernel, and also the noise statistics from each camera should be available. So you might get decent sharpening results.
     
  108. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Silly question, but why separate capture and output sharpening? Why not do them both as a last step?​
    Because capture sharpening is agnostic in terms of output sharpening. Output sharpening is based on the device and size of the document. Do you always print to the same device using the same number of pixels? If so, in theory, you could run capture, then output sharpening at the same time, as one action in fact. But if you decide today you’ll capture sharpen the full rez original and output an 11x14 to an ink jet, the an 8x11 halftone, the output sharpening has to be different and of course based on the capture sharpening. Its like asking “why keep data in an RGB working space, just convert from the get-go into U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2“. Well that’s fine if every time you print, you’ll always be targeting that web press. In all likelihood, you’ll converting to many different devices so you keep the archive in an RGB working space (Capture Sharpen), then at the last step, convert to the output space (size and output sharpen). The master archive can always be used in the future for other needs.
    http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html
     
  109. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I use Adobe Lightroom with RAW (oops, raw) photos, which has its sharpening feature built in. Do you know if this uses the same engine as Photoshop or a different one?​
    Both capture and output sharpening in LR and ACR are based on the Pixel Genius products. No, the processing is not the same for a number of reasons (one being, Photoshop operates on gamma adjusted data, LR linear encoded data). The engines if you will are different.
    Ray Yes, Lightroom uses the same engine as PS.​
    No, it doesn’t at all, unless you’re being quite sloppy here and referring to ACR which DOES share the same processing engine as LR. Photoshop, nope, no way.
     
  110. I'm looking at full resolution images here Jeff. And at 100% its a pretty damn close representation of what the image will or can look like in print.​
    Well, you may think that...my experience indicates that a properly output sharpened image will NOT look good at 100% zoom. The degree of increased sharpening in anticipation of printed output is not something you can judge on screen. Nor can you modify output sharpening for matte or glossy media on screen.
    If you think output sharpening is useless, I wonder why you think Adobe worked with Pixel Genius to incorporate PK Output Sharpening into Lightroom and Camera Raw? Did they waste their time? I think not :~)
     
  111. Andrew, yes thats what I mean. If you process a RAW in LR, it uses the same ACR as Photoshop.
    Jeff, I said,
    And at 100% its a pretty damn close representation of what the image will or can look like in print.​
    Looking at an image at 100% will give you a good enough idea of what image will or possibly look like in print. I didnt say looking at an image thats been cooked for print at 100%. Obviously it will look bad. I also said, I process in my RAW converter(DPP) to make my image look as good as it can first, which is the right way to do it. Then I said, if I know I'll be printing that particular image, I'll add some heavy sharpening just before I print it to counter the print softness. Call that output sharpening if you want, but its just sharpening.
    My statement was in response to the nonsense statement that you can never know how good a print will look until its printed. Thats total BS. I can look at my RAW and know immediately what my image needs for print. Usually its always the same. Only time I need creative sharpening for eyes for instance is when the focus wasnt spot on. If the image is in focus, not much sharpening is needed for print or web.
    My images always look like my RAWS at 100%. I use a calibrated workflow and start with good images. When it looks right and sharp enough but doesnt look like its been sharpened, its right. At this point I stop. If its to be printed, I go back to it and crank the slider a little further. Thats all it takes.
    If you think output sharpening is useless, I wonder why you think Adobe worked with Pixel Genius to incorporate PK Output Sharpening into Lightroom and Camera Raw? Did they waste their time? I think not :~)​
    I never said output sharpening was useless. I said the 3 step process bologne was useless and calling this sharpening process output sharpening was useless. Its just sharpening. You add extra sharpening to offset print softness or less shrpening for web. It doesnt take a special term or additional program to do this. This is exactly what confuses new users and spawns the questions about sharpening. People over complicate the process to the point where is u nbearable. Look, output is just sharpening for the use. More heavy for print, less for web.
    And why do I think Adobe worked with Pixel Genius to add PK Sharpener. Because of $$$$$$ man. Dont kid yourself. They saw the hold PG had on having everyone convinced that their method was the only way to do it right, and so they wanted a piece of the pie. Not because it was so good. And I personally wont use it. I think its not as good as Smart Sharpen. I proved that in the post above. Waste your money and time if you want to, I'm not buying it. I dont need it.
     
  112. I never said output sharpening was useless. I said the 3 step process bologne was useless and calling this sharpening process output sharpening was useless. Its just sharpening.​
    You sure about that or do you want to actually learn something?
    If you are sure that 3 phase sharpening of capture, creative and output sharpening is useless, goodie for you. You are wrong...but it seems you don't want to better yourself so, more power to you if you want to ignore the experts in the industry. Again, I would refer to your "creds"as perhaps not meeting the the expectations I have of being an "expert". Sorry, can't say you are adding much to the common knowledge...
     
  113. I never said output sharpening was useless. I said the 3 step process bologne was useless and calling this sharpening process output sharpening was useless. Its just sharpening.​
    You sure about that or do you want to actually learn something?
    If you are sure that 3 phase sharpening of capture, creative and output sharpening is useless, goodie for you. You are wrong...but it seems you don't want to better yourself so, more power to you if you want to ignore the experts in the industry. Again, I would refer to your "creds"as perhaps not meeting the the expectations I have of being an "expert". Sorry, can't say you are adding much to the common knowledge...
     
  114. Good stuff in here. I've been using Lightroom sharpening mostly, but the nice thing about it is that it never modifies the original, so I can go back and revisit them later. As well as easily saving multiple edits of the same picture.
     
  115. I'm always up for learning. But only when its learning something that helps, not adds more work for either the same results or worse all because someone tells you its supposed to be this way.
    Never claimed to be an expert. Just simply stated that, I dont believe everything I hear. And that 2 experts can have differing ideas and opinions....but whos actually right. Thats my point. Its clear I got the same results without all this nonsense. I believe what my eyes show me, not what someone tell me is right. The world is full of people trying to make a point and a buck and will do anything they can to drive it home.
    Honda is an expert in Automotive Manufacturing. So is Toyota. But Honda will tell you that their vehicle is the best and that their way is the only way that works for the best results. Bet many here will object to that having owned both Hondas and Toyotas.
    I was also an Engineer for Mercedes Benz and you wont belivee the crap I was told by other engineers in the recent years about their product, only to see them be wrong and fired afterwords because it cost the company so much money. And they were experts as well. But wrong. Why, because another "expert" at the supplier told them that the way he was doing it was wrong(obviously, they have a product to sell) and so he went with it. The parts failed and cost the company millions becasue of warranty claims and yard sorting to contain the issue.
    So you see, forgive me if I dont take the Bruce Fraser pill. I'm sure he was a wonderful photographer. But I have seen the results from his PK kit and I dont like it. I think its not needed and the results arent as good as others Ive tried.
    And I do listen and learn. I looked at Patricks method of Smart Sharpen and agreed with him that its excellent. Thanked him and will be using it when needed from now on. So I moved up in ability now because I have another tool to use, thanks to him. But becasue I didnt take the Bruce Frasier pill, my creds are questioned...get outta here man.
    And as a side note also, the last time an "expert" told me I should invest my 401K in HealthSouth Medical, I said "I'll pass".
    Because I saw that Richard Scrushy was in charge and knowing him from past having had family involved in business transactions with him and friends in business transactions with him and seeing how shady he was in business practice. Said no way, that guys a too shady for me to give my money to. Do a google search on the HealthSouth scandle and Richard Scrushy and see what it turns up, I'm sure you are not familiar with it if you are out of area. Dude went to prison for fudging books and scammed people out of millions who lost their retirements because of him. Why, because "experts" from all walks convinced people to go with it.
    Moral of this story, Experts are not always right, so what makes Bruce Fraser any different or anyone else for that matter. If I see it for myself, I'll go with it. Just as I did with Smart Sharpen.
     
  116. dam, im happy you like my method.. wouldtn want you to be on my back ; )
    _______
    I will answer all the questions later today or tomorow..im busy retouching lingerie shot today..so you will understand that my attention have to be put on something else for 24hre ; P
     
  117. So you see, forgive me if I dont take the Bruce Fraser pill. I'm sure he was a wonderful photographer. But I have seen the results from his PK kit and I dont like it. I think its not needed and the results arent as good as others Ive tried.​
    Yeah, well you see that's where the problem lies...he wasn't a photographer...we was an imaging expert in color and image sharpness. He did considerable research which led to PhotoKit Sharpener and ultimately to the capture sharpening of Camera Raw & Lightroom as well as the output sharpening of Lightroom and Camera Raw. Bruce never claimed to be a good photographer but he sure did to a lot of research.
    I guess you've never read any of his book huh? Real World Image Sharpness? Real World Camera Raw? Ring any bells? Since Bruce passed away, I've taken over both of those books. The new edition of Real World Image Sharpness is out...perhaps by reading it you might gain some insight to what Bruce and I know (that you don't seem to) that a 3 phase sharpening workflow can produce optimal results and is used efficiently without substantial increase in workflow. A lot of that comes from knowing how to use the tools at hand.
    As for the rest of your, uh, "post" about Mercedes, Honda, Toyota and that last bit about 401K investments...yeah, right, whatever...
     
  118. As for the rest of your, uh, "post" about Mercedes, Honda, Toyota and that last bit about 401K investments...yeah, right, whatever...​
    Yeah, thats exactley what people do when they dont have an answer after someone else showed a different side to things.
    How did we get into this anyway. All I said was I didnt like it, showed examples of the results from several methods including his, and now I am in an arguement with someone I dont know...about someone I dont know.
    Look, he may very well have some insight that might turn out to be correct and worthwhile. I may read his book....I do know I wont spend 79.99 for it thats for sure.
    If he says anything in there that I havent heard of or tried, I'll do as I always do and give it a shot. If I like, I'll keep doing it.
    Just like I did with Patricks method. Look, I'm not beyond trying new things. I love to learn. I eat breath and live photography everyday. Thats what I do for a living. When I am not working on something, I'm reading new stuff, trying new things every spare moment I have. Almost to a fault....my wife hates it.
    I'm just beyond taking everyones word for it and not testing my own thoughts. I want to see results, not told that they work...and so far, I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise....yet
     
  119. uh, is this too sharp?...
    00UbmI-176389784.jpg
     
  120. All I did is work on the contrast tonal edge roll off adjusting Clarity and Contrast in ACR 4.6.
     
  121. look good, maybe just the top rock seem a bit too vibrant, like too sharp compare the whole image? it could be just a matter of DOF and the leaf seem out fo focus compare to the rock?
     
  122. I'd say this is good. Looks just like you could reach out and touch it.
    From the small web pic, doesnt look cooked or over sharpened to me. This is what I strive for and have always gotten it without additional programs etc. As stated, if this pic was slid into PS for some retouching, then the included Smart Sharpen tool would be just as good or better. But, being you didnt opt for PS retouch, the USM in ACR did the trick.
    That wasnt hard. And if someone new was to ask you, "How'd you get those so sharp". You could say, "I sharpened it in ACR" without confusing them with, "I applied capture sharpening in ACR, then output sharpening upon export." You did just that, sharpened the photo for its use.
     
  123. Wow, Camera Raw 4.6...hum, ya know Photoshop CS4 and Camera Raw 5.x have been out for a year now...lot's of new stuff in Camera Raw...
    Just saying...
     
  124. From your comments I think I may have sharpened too much for the web. LOL! Patrick, that's bark from a pecan tree, not a rock next to the green plant, but that's what I was expecting. I would've mistook the bark for dried dog poop. But also this could be due to the abstractness of the image from it being a macro shot.
    I didn't sharpen it in ACR. I left it at defaults. What I did was fix color temp,
    Exposure: -.45,
    Fill: 20,
    Brightness: 60
    Contrast: 40
    Clarity: 60
    With a "Strong Contrast" point curve instead of the default medium. Applied USM in Photoshop indicated above.
    Also selected a custom profile built from an X-rite Color Checker chart using the Wizard section in Adobe DNG Profiler Editor. This added additional definition to the roll off in the shadows.
    The before image was quite flat and ugly looking because I shot AutoWB with an old legacy film Pentax lens with plenty of early Monday morning sunlight. See the 100% view before and after crops.
    I did this to show that sometimes its more about massaging the contrast out of the image more than relying on sharpening. The problem with all sharpening techniques is it's hard to anticipate how the final results will look on a calibrated ultrasharp LCD downsized for the web. I would've had to keep going back to the original and readjusting sharpness and contrast which I didn't do here. However, it did look similarly to zooming down to 25% or whatever percentage that's an even multiple of 2. A relatively small rez 6MP size image helped as well. Larger rez images may require smaller zoom views to emulate the same crispyness in the final web size.
    Jeff, ACR 4.6 works fine for me. I like its simplicity. It feels like a swiss army knife with all the tools I need right in front me. Don't need all the extra bells and whistles.
    00UbwO-176487584.jpg
     
  125. Correction on the After screengrab. It was taken in Photoshop CS3.
     
  126. Help me here.
    I don't understand why David's comments are wrong, i.e., the point that if you sharpen the whole image 125% in step 1, 125% eyes in step 2, and 25% whole image in step 3, it is the same as doing all of that in one step at the end, with 250% to whole image and 275% to the eyes. Is the result not the same?
    Also, I don't understand the comment about different outputs. So, if you go to different output devices, say print and web, you use different "output" sharpening. Let's say that's 25% for print and 5% for web. Well, can't you just change that to 150% for print and 130% for web if you do capture and output at the same time?
    It seems to my beginner brain that a 2 step sharpening process is actually the fastest.
     
  127. Ok, lingerie being retouched, i have time to answer ; )
    ________
    First, for those who dont know Bruce Fraser.. here's a adress for you; He was the first name that pop in my search engine 17years ago when i search for Photoshop..i was 18 at that time, and just start with Photoshop 2.0 and i need advice, and with my limited english at that time (some will say it still limited ; ) i manage to learn a lot from him, so with respect for THE man and all i learn from him, google is name or go to this web site at least.
    http://www.brucefraserlegacy.com/
    ________
    @Carol/ "Remember that you should never add digital sharpness with help from a Raw conversion software or with your camera" ... let me explain.
    When i wrote this tutorial 2 years ago, ACR was really bad at sharpening your images, Lr was not out yet and when it was, the first version sucks for sharpening..and the camera sharpening still not that good as today. So when i said not to use the sharpen in camera or with your raw develolpment software it was because it yield bad result, and many of you that where still doing it was creating halo around object when you add more sharpnes after..therefore, many user where also using Noise Ninja or similar to remove that problem cause at first by a wrong sharpening routine. Today as other have mention, ACR and LR are pretty good at doing it, i still dont like the output sharpening method or way of applying it without seing the result.
    @Stephen/ Do I have to learn 3 stage sharpening with yet another piece of software? Pretty soon I'll be spending more time on the computer than I ever spent in the darkroom.
    The good thing is you dont ahve to learn anything if you dont feel for it, you dont have to read and try my tutorial if you dont want..thats the good thing about living free ; ) But as a professional photo retoucher i have the chance to work with amazing photographer and very very demanding client who want perfection everyday..so for them or because of them it push me at becoming better and learning different avenue AND i needed to create a speedy workflow that work in any situation, the reason why i do my sharpen that way.
    Photoshop and Ligthroom are well documented software, and for many pro and amateur alike they are the holy grail of photo retouching, so for me, like you i only need to learn 2 good dam software that do everything i need. And since those sftware are camera maker free, i can mastered only those 2 software and be able to use ANY file from ANY camera on the market; not having to learn DPP because i have a Canon, and next year learning Capture because i switch camera is a big plus. Those are my reason why i decide to work with only Adobe product for years..and luckily i can afford it.
    @Richard/ I dotn know if Bruce Fraser invented the 3 step sharpening, but it was the first time i read it when i bought is book, the same you mention 2-3 years ago. I was happy that not knowing him and not having read about that before that whe use the same method, i just didtn have call it a method, for me its was just plain logic
    • apply your sharpening at the first stage in Photoshop like i would have make sure my neg where in focus in my darkroom enlarger.
    • apply a second one later on to make some important details pop up
    • when all is finished, and that you are ready to send the file apply another small sharpening to compensate for the paper..to be honest i never tought about it for the web until when i read the book, and i didtn know i should apply it after the file have been reduce..so i thought it was a good thing to talk about it as my first subject for this local French Photo Mag call Photo Solution when they approach me 2 years ago to write small to the point tutorial, that they later translate and publish (with my agreement) to there sister English mag call Photo Life.
    @Megan/ both could be good, depend of what you are after, but i tend to apply today a settign of 150% to start at my first stage on all my file, then apply another 125% to certain area with the help of a mask, and in need (i should say always) drop the opacity of this second pass make on a background copy to around 80% or around..so if i need a stronger effect i have it, if i want a softer effect i just drop the opacity a bit without the need of going back in the smar sharpen menu and redoing it.
    @Dan/ I have try so many way of doing it, USM, Edge Sharpening, Local Contrast enhancement, High Pass..and all the plug n you can try, and in the end it was the free new Smart Sharpen that do for me. PK Sharpener is a really good plug in for those who don't want to test and try, or dont have the sufficient knowledge or print experience of doing it. I send more than a 1000 image per year to be printed to different media (for those math guy, i have assistant in the big period to help me speed up the workflow..thats how i can produce more images per day) So for me i dont see the sue of it, as i dont see the sue of Nik SIlver effex, even if i know it a really good add on to your collection; i dont say they are bad, i just sa that I dont use them because i have acquire in the past 17 years experience and method of doing things fast and with the help of the action and image processor i get my result in no time. I also prefer understanding and knowing exactly what i do and how i can modulate the effect for this or that kind of file, when i say this is the method i sue for ny kind of file its true, the only thing that will change is on what details i apply my second sharpening pass, and at what opacity..all the rest is exactly the same; lingerie, fasion, portrait, apple, car, trees..all the same for me.
    @Jeffrey/ i like to apologize when it seem i have done something wrong, but to a certain extend ; ) after that i just dont care and become arrogant... i cant change the way i am.
    @David/ will it be different to wait at the end to do all 3 ..maybe not? Would it be different if you just use 1 pass..for sure. You wont be able to put the attention to certain details if you only give your file 1 global pass. And since i like to see as fast as possible all the texture and the skin grain, i apply my first sharpening asap. Then when all my global correction have been done, that all my dust / pimple / correction have been done, and that the thing that need to be remove or add have been done..then i apply my second pass where i need it.
    @Rob/ Clarity is not the same as doing a sharpen, its a local contrast enhancement like i was doing for years with USM " What USM? you sayd you didtn use that bad filter?!" agree i stop using it 8-9 years ago..but for local contrast enhancement it was and still very good...but since LR and ACR have it now built in them, i use it there. What it does is kind of make the edge pop more and create a false idea of sharpening; example, if you have a image of a polar bear on a snow surface, using clarity will make the furs vs the snow detached itself and create a more details image, or add some *i can touch it almost* kind of look..like in Silver Effex, when you use the filter call *structure*. By adding some clarity / structure / local contrast it give a i can feel it kind of look, then you apply a sharpen and you say *dam! this shot is alive!*
    Just be carefull with the cllarity slider over a portrait..it make all the defect more apparent and you dont want that. I generally for portrait and fashion shot use around 15 max in Lr for a natural effect.
    @Ziggy/ Why separate the input and output sharpening..because for me its 2 things. the first one is to get back some lens details, the second one is to prepare the file for different kind of use; for a monitor, for a porous paper (you will need to oversharp your file so it look good) for glossy paper (a small amount if often only require, more than this will make your file look also oversharp in print) for magazine use (133lpi, 150lpi, 175lpi..web sheet or roll?) again it make a huge difference in the final look.
    I normally put more sharpen when i send the file to be print in high end fashion magazine *ALERT* name droping ; ) like the ELLE, Bazzar, Surface and other like that vs when i print on my Epson 7880 on luster paper.
    The funny thing Ziggy is you know me, you know the type of work i do, and i think that knowing the type of work you do should try this method and see / discover it give your model a better sharpen look..you can fight and dont try it just because, or you do it and see if it work for you.. it might or not, but at least you will be able to see it. Im not talking about UFO here or Gost that you cant see with your own eyes and have to believe blindfully those who said that saw it..you can TEST it yourself in the next 2min...lets do it and see what you think...or end me a file of yours and i will do it correctly so you can compare with your method vs mine ; )
    lets put back a better way of explain it by Andrew..in case it get lost in this whole post;
    Because capture sharpening is agnostic in terms of output sharpening. Output sharpening is based on the device and size of the document. Do you always print to the same device using the same number of pixels? If so, in theory, you could run capture, then output sharpening at the same time, as one action in fact. But if you decide today you’ll capture sharpen the full rez original and output an 11x14 to an ink jet, the an 8x11 halftone, the output sharpening has to be different and of course based on the capture sharpening. Its like asking “ why keep data in an RGB working space, just convert from the get-go into U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2“ . Well that’s fine if every time you print, you’ll always be targeting that web press. In all likelihood, you’ll converting to many different devices so you keep the archive in an RGB working space (Capture Sharpen), then at the last step, convert to the output space (size and output sharpen). The master archive can always be used in the future for other needs.
    http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html
    @Tim/ sorry at first i thought it was really a rock..not a bark ; )..put that on the macro abstractness.. I think its a really good example why you cant put the same amount of sharpness everywhere the same..because not all the image need the same amount of it. Like here, the bark could have had 50% less maybe, while you want to keep this setting for the leafs..
    @All/ As for the 100%-50%-25% view, you should always apply your first sharpen at 100% to see the effect, and since you dont have anything else to test the result, i think by viewing it at 100% on your LCD would be a good start. Then by apply later your second pass, i still go at 100% to make sure the setting is OK and apply it with a mask..for the last step, i put generally my viewing at the desire 25% or 50% depending of the final output destination and sharpen it until it look good, or slightly over sharp..then im pretty sure it will look good printed..but certainly way over on my screen at 100%.
    Whooo, thats about it i think? Now i have to go write some french to clean my head ; )
    Oh, i have upload and post my tutorial here somewhere along the post ..so you can get it here and stop asking for it by email..please.
     
  128. Help me here.
    I don't understand why David's comments are wrong, i.e., the point that if you sharpen the whole image 125% in step 1, 125% eyes in step 2, and 25% whole image in step 3, it is the same as doing all of that in one step at the end, with 250% to whole image and 275% to the eyes. Is the result not the same?​
    Well Ziggy, you are partially right.
    In my example from Patrick. Only the eyes have 275% total due to:
    Step 1 - SS of 125% to whole image.
    Step 2 - SS of 125% to second layer but masked to only the eyes, then
    Step 3 - SS of 25% to entire image after flattening layers resulted in 275% on eyes, but 150% on face, chin, ears etc due to masking. Applying 275% at end to entire image would result in oversharpened areas that he didnt want sharpened.
    Now, lets say for simplicity and round numbers that Patrick did NOT want to do creative sharpening of the eyes. So skip step 2(creative sharpening) where he made 2nd layer and added additional 125% and masked for the eyes. Step 3 was only 25%. So without step 2, the total is 150% on entire image because he didnt do creative sharpening with a mask.
    So there is not need to capture sharpen with 125% first, then 25% at the end. You are correct. It would not matter if he did the 150% at the beginnin gor the end or split it. It doesnt matter. He may like his image to be sharp while working with it, you may not care and choose to do it at end.
    You know, I actually use Paint Shop Pro. I just always have. I had it when I first started out and its easy for me and does everything I need it to. So there was never a need to use Adobe PS other than everyone out there telling me to. But one cool thing Paint Shop has is a brush that will sharpen,soften,dodge,burn,smear etc. So I can just open a TIFF in Paint Shop, select the sharpen brush on the eyes and get pretty much the same effect without needing to do all the layers and masking. I attached a pic comparing the PK Sharpener 3 step method vs DPP conversion and Paint Shop Pro method I mentioned. You tell me.
    I just use it in the rare case where I want the eye ball and pupil to have extra bite...and it works fine. Patricks method does the same thing, just a different method, but he has always used PS so he uses it with ease.
    I did this as an example and it had no effect on the image when the sharpening was applied in edit, even if cropping was in order.
    I sharpened total first, the made color adjustments and cropped the image for 8x10 and then did that in reverse. Crop first, color adjust and then sharpen and the images were identical.
    So you are right in that "if" there is not need for selective or creative sharpening, then do it whenever you want, it doesnt matter. The only thing is, remember that if you do this and finish the imge and make a jpeg, then go and resize it down small for the web, you must resharpen it because it will lose bite.
    On your image above, you could have done all this in one program like ACR in any order you wish. Or Lightroom. Both have USM. You didnt even need to put that image in CS3 for USM unless you wanted to do retouching to it. Lets say there was dog poo in the background you wanted gone, this would require you to use PS to clone it out or whatever. You could let ACR sharpen it, then open retouch and save that, or let ACR do everything but sharpen, and let PS sharpen it at time of retouch. Either way, it wouldnt matter. I know people say it does matter, but I did the test all different ways, and even at 200% it didnt matter at all when the sharpening was applied. But,if no retouch is in order, it only takes one program to do what you did. And LR can do small healing and cloning without needing to use PS.
    Also, I don't understand the comment about different outputs. So, if you go to different output devices, say print and web, you use different "output" sharpening. Let's say that's 25% for print and 5% for web. Well, can't you just change that to 150% for print and 130% for web if you do capture and output at the same time?
    It seems to my beginner brain that a 2 step sharpening process is actually the fastest.​
    As for output sharpening. PS doesnt have the "output sharpening tool" and neither does ACR. LR has this in the print module for Print sharpening and the export module and its just a shortcut tool to add some sharpening for web or print upon export.
    You can do the same thing by sharpening for the media. If you know the image will be on web at 1280 pixels wide, size it to 1280, then sharpen a little, usually when it come to the web, I find once it looks right , back off a touch. Web images geneally will show as oversharpened once posted. On full size images for print, I find that once it looks good to the eye, go some more for print becasue it does lose sharpness in printing. Sme call this output sharpening, I just call sharpening. And I always sharpen with the intended use in mind.
    Sorry for the long posts, I find that here on Photo.net, that on these touchy subjects if you dont explain your post very very well, someone will take it, turn it all around and completely missunderstand the post.
    00Uc97-176625584.jpg
     
  129. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    As for output sharpening. PS doesnt have the "output sharpening tool" and neither does ACR.​
    Yes, ACR does. You’re typing faster than investigating.... Slow down. Its in the workflow options.
     
  130. Whew Patrick. I thought I posted long responses.
    I agree with your response completely. If I have one shot, sometimes I will add selective areas to sharpen for sure. And not all areas need the same sharpening. But, for most of what i shoot, I dont and wouldnt need to sharpen all areas different.
    So when a Bride decides she wants a print, I reopen my original TIFF that was sharpened in DPP at default+3.
    And not because its the correct way or anything, I go ahead and crop for the size first so that I dont work on anything in an area that might be lost anyway due to cropping.
    Then I do any color changes needed and get it perfect for my targeted print. Then I sharpen the whole image to where its good. Go just a touch more for print.
    Then sometimes I might use a tool to sharpen just the eye at the pupil and iris just to give the print that extra sparkle. But I only do that to prints though.
    I stated this as you typed your novel(hahaha), but I use Paint Shop Pro, because like you with PS, its what I've always used. I have always gotten good results with it, so I never bothered with trying anything else.
    But, this tutorial you posted, made me download the CS4 trial and PK Kit just to test it and see if I could get anything btter. After long tests, I found just as you said, the Smart Sharpen method you use is very good. I may actually adopt this method if I intend on doing any selective sharpening for prints in the future. Reason being, in the past, all my retouching work was done in LR and only when I wanted selective sharpening, did I open Paint Shop for that. But, when I do, it does indeed require 3 programs for my flow(Paint Shop doesnt do RAWS).
    DPP does my RAW conversion to TIFF becasue I dont like LR RAW conversion. Then LR is my retouching tool and sharpening tool(LR is also where I print from). Then, if printing and I want selective sharpening, I slide that TIFF into Paint Shop Pro.
    But your method may help me. If I know I'll be taking a RAW thru some fine tuning, I can open the RAW in PS, set the sharpening to 0 in ACR, and work the entire image from start to finish in 1 program. SO thanks for that. Also, I still use LR 1.3 and I see now that 2.0 has localized adjustments, so that program may actually do what I need instead of PS.
    As for Bruce. I really and truely mean no disrespect to him. My statement was only in regards to just using something based on Bruce telling me its the way it should be. I, as you stated, will try anything and based on my own results alone, will continue to use it only if I see fit. I tried yours and liked it. I tried Bruce's and did not. I will not use it just because Bruce says so or because he is Bruce Fraser....as you decided as well to opt not to follow your idle in the sharpening department.
    I may actually send you the RAW file and see what you do with it. Though I dont know how that will be done as I cant send a 13MB RAW thru email. But curious what your render would be
     
  131. you can send it using, well, yousendit.com or use a ftp program and upload it to my secure ftp...just contact me off Photo Net for the info.
     
  132. Andew, I've been wrong in the past....but where? "Workflow" options?
    Keep in mind, I'm using PC not MAC so it could be labled different. But I'm not seeing anything in PS or Camera RAW that has anything to do with "output sharpening".
    Under Camera RAW Preferences, I see in the General row where Sharpening can be applied to all images or previews but that has nothing to do with output. But havent found anything else anywhere. Be glad to look more.
    The new LR has a module in export dialog that specifically says, Output Sharpening.
     
  133. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    "Workflow" options?​
    The area that looks like a web link that allows you to set output rez and working space.
    Keep in mind, I'm using PC not MAC so it could be labled different.​
    Identical on both platforms (this is Adobe after all).
     
  134. Andrew, I did a help search and it says you can specify this in Workflow options, but in my Workflow tab, the only thing thats there is"
    Space
    Depth
    Size
    Resolution
    and thats it.
     
  135. Thats what I clicked and its not there.
     
  136. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Thats what I clicked and its not there.​
    Time to use a modern version of ACR!
     
  137. Dude. Its the CS4. As new as it gets. Camera RAW 5.0 at top of screen.
     
  138. Sent you an email Patrick
     
  139. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Dude. Its the CS4. As new as it gets. Camera RAW 5.0 at top of screen.​
    No, its not as new as it gets. Its in 5.2, you NEED TO UPGRADE, we (those of us using a modern version) are running 5.5. http://www.adobe.com/downloads/updates/ http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1334084&seqNum=5
     
  140. I assumed it was the newest version as I downloaded it from Adobe yesterday.
    Assume....ASS U ME
    Downloaded...its there. You RIGHT
    You'd think Adobe would give the latest version of their producs upon download. Guess thats what I get for thinkin
     
  141. Janne Moren , Sep 24, 2009; 09:35 a.m.
    WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING AT US?
    Interesting, I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it.
    Who cares ?
    Bill P.
     
  142. i tought i would have beat the mac vs pc thread of last years, having more than 140 response already (i think the mac / pc thread had 240 something) Common people! do SOMETHING ; )
    AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH..thats screaming ; P
     
  143. Patrick - tell them "soit belle et tais toi".
     
  144. Patrick,
    Many grateful and sincere thanks for the time and effort you've taken to share your knowledge and expertise.
    Cheers!
     
  145. Thanks for posting. It is an excellent Photoshop action, purchased in the past and much-used, which I will look to renew if possible.
     
  146. not sure i understand the word action / purchased..since its not a action, and i never sale it but give it for free?
    did you really bought it somewhere?
     
  147. What have I learn? Nothing except it just reforces what I believe when it comes to photo editing.
    In the end do what works for you. Be open minded to learn something new or make changes to your workflow.
    I bought PKS when it first came out years ago and still use today. I did take some beauty photos of mine and compared it Patrick's PDF article the result for me are close but not willing to make the changes to my photo editing steps.
    But if I was new to photo editing in Photoshop I would frankly think hard about spending money on PKS since I could get similar results for free. Is that because of Patrick? Not really it how much Photoshop has improved when PKS first came out and it does say how good PKS was when it first came out.
    I do use Lightroom sharpening for something I need quick but the results I want on some of my photos I need to select (paint) the sharpening I want in Photoshop and for me it is still the best tool to use.
    I would prefer to see no one to magify a photo of mine to 300% to see how sharpe the model's eyes are using my sharpening steps, but prefer them to see the catch light in the model's eye and that does not take 300% to see.
    Bill
     
  148. Patrick, I think David's referring to PhotoKit Sharpener.
     
  149. Stephen Asprey [​IMG][​IMG], Sep 25, 2009; 05:53 p.m.
    Hey...Just as a contrary comment:

    Wouldn't it be nice if you could buy one decent, easy to use piece of software that does the job really well. And I don't mean anything from Adobe. They're robbers and their stuff is only 90% of what you want. Compromises in RAW conversion, expensive, difficult to learn, licensing regime sucks, needs add ons...where does it stop? I suppose that's too much to ask?
    I do Nikon raw conversion to TIFF in Capture NX2 and tweak in BreezeBrowser Pro. Do I have to learn 3 stage sharpening with yet another piece of software? Pretty soon I'll be spending more time on the computer than I ever spent in the darkroom.
    Anyone feel the same?
    Stephen, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Adobe has spent a fortune convincing people that their software is a necessary part of the photo processing chain, that you can't be a "real" photographer without it.
    They've created an "industry standard" which seems to be adhered to slavishly by this new generation of photo-lemmings.
    Apparently they offer courses and "diplomas" of some sort, and you can get a raise by becomng an Adobe "ACE".
    http://www.adobe.com/support/certification/ace.html
    That's market penetration in the extreme !
    I just googled Adobe, and there are two references to mud huts, and the rest is, well, did I mention penetration ?
    I attend the PDN show here in NYC every year, and the show is 95% digital photography and of that, it's about 90% Adobe, what works with Adobe, why you need Adobe, you can't be a "real" photographer without Adobe, ad nauseum.
    If your shots are so bad that they all need an overhaul with Adobe, then you should probably be doing something else.
    I shoot totally unretouched about 98% of the time, and I see no need for Adobe.
    Most shooters today are producing work that is so obviously processed that it leaves me cold. They use Adobe to suck the last bit of life out of their shots, and somehow that's photography.
    Yeah, okay.
    As far as a one-program-does-all approach, I find that different programs use different algorithms for sharpening, softening, etc., and different photos respond better to different software solutions.
    Bill P.
     
  150. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I attend the PDN show here in NYC every year, and the show is 95% digital photography and of that, it's about 90% Adobe, what works with Adobe, why you need Adobe, you can't be a "real" photographer without Adobe, ad nauseum.
    If your shots are so bad that they all need an overhaul with Adobe, then you should probably be doing something else.​
    Right on Mr Beck. And worst of all, none of the employees are born in the US and have all attempted to have their grandmothers put on a death list.
    Geeze, no one holds a gun to anyone’s head to buy Photoshop or any Adobe product unless, oh wait, this is a communist country now and we all have to use an Adobe product to send email and do our accounting.
    I shoot totally unretouched about 98% of the time, and I see no need for Adobe.​
    Great. And everyone else who does is obviously a no talent wack job who’s been brain wished by Adobe’s so called penetration. Can we get back on track and back to planet earth or, as Barney Frank so eloquently said recently, continue to try to have a conversation with a piece of furniture?
     
  151. Andrew Rodney [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 09, 2009; 10:01 a.m.
    Right on Mr Beck. And worst of all, none of the employees are born in the US and have all attempted to have their grandmothers put on a death list, etc........
    Ah yes, another insightful, constructive and well thought out response.
    It's good to see that when we have differing opinions, you're so well spoken and considerate.
    What a wonderful example to set for the newcomers, too !
    By the way, what's your point here ?
    Bill P.
     
  152. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    By the way, what's your point here ?​
    Sorry to have to connect the dots but my point is you’ve highjacked another thread here to introduce your political and IMHO pretty narrow views of Adobe. Clear?
     
  153. Andrew Rodney [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 09, 2009; 10:30 a.m.

    By the way, what's your point here ?
    Sorry to have to connect the dots but my point is you’ve highjacked another thread here to introduce your political and IMHO pretty narrow views of Adobe. Clear?
    No, not really. Had you taken the time to actually READ my post, you'd see that I was responding to another poster, Stephen Asprey, who was in fact lamenting about photoshop. That's not a hijack. You jumping on this thread with your childish and embittered attitude is a hijack. Let's face it, for some reason I annoy you. We've never met, you have no idea who I am, yet you love to find a "reason" to be disruptive, rude, condescending and generally abusive to me, and then you "qualify" it with the ubiquitous "IMHO". Connect the dots ? Oh please, grow up. Bill P.
     
  154. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    My comments are equally directed to you and Aspery. Feel better?
    Don’t give yourself the credit, you’re not on my radar anywhere close to being annoying. It would be useful if the discussion went back to sharpening instead of attacking Adobe.
     
  155. Andrew Rodney [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 09, 2009; 10:59 a.m.
    My comments are equally directed to you and Aspery. Feel better?
    Don’t give yourself the credit, you’re not on my radar anywhere close to being annoying. It would be useful if the discussion went back to sharpening instead of attacking Adobe.
    Huh ? "Feel better?"
    You're kidding, right ?
    My neighbor has a 13 yer old daughter that sounds like you.
    If returning to the O/P means not having to listen to you, then I'm all for it.
    Bill P.
     
  156. If your shots are so bad that they all need an overhaul with Adobe, then you should probably be doing something else.​
    Scroll up to the before and after sharpening samples I posted of the green leaf and bark. The before image is pretty hideous mainly due in part to using a legacy film Pentax lens that my K100D DSLR knows nothing about and so has nothing to go on in rendering a decent image not even a jpeg no matter if I nail the exposure. I have to edit my images. I have no choice mainly because digital cameras are primarily driven by software more so than hardware despite all the reviews of lenses and camera brands.
    If you've ever edited the base tone curve applied directly to the sensor's linear data within a raw converter, you'll discover there's a lot of secret sauce mathematically engineered into into this curve among other proprietary tweaks for each camera brand that sets each apart from the rest.
    Don't even think your command of exposure in nailing the shot every time has anything to do with your experience. Software is merely a tool, not a political philosophy. Whatever gets the job done. And Adobe products have a lot of secret sauce of their own engineered under the hood that delivers for the money. From the look of your images in your PN gallery it appears you should spend some time getting to know some of Adobe's secret sauce.
    Adobe's Raw converter is the simplest and most powerful editing tool I've ever used even better than Photoshop itself and I've been using that program since version 4 about ten years ago. I've also tried out 4 other raw converters including Capture One and I keep going back to Adobe's converter because of its simplicity and color rendering engine.
    I used to be a photo realist painter where I worked with the best and most expensive media around like Dr. Martin dyes, $15 an ounce Windsor Newton watercolors and brushes on the best rag papers around. I can tell you from this experience Adobe's color editing programs mimic the spectral response from this kind of media within the behavior of their editing tools over any other program I've used.
    So tell me do you think I should be doing something else besides photography knowing that I have to use Adobe products for all my images?
    Your gallery only shows 5 images. Why is that?
     
  157. Tim Lookingbill [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 09, 2009; 03:06 p.m.
    So tell me do you think I should be doing something else besides photography knowing that I have to use Adobe products for all my images?
    Your gallery only shows 5 images. Why is that?
    Tim, I did the same sequence on your leaf photo in about a minute using a very simple editor, no need for photoshop, and that's my point.
    I'm referring to the people that adhere slavishly to p/s when a very simple editor is all that's needed for pre-print if you got the shot right in the first place.
    You can use any editor you like, it's your money. If you think your shots all need photoshop to be brought up to par, that's a different story.
    My gallery shows 5 photos because as a non-paying member I think I'm limited to 5 photos.
    Bill P.
     
  158. Can you post the results of the one minute edit using your simple editor?
    It took me a bit longer than that to arrive at my version using ACR.
     
  159. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    It took me a bit longer than that to arrive at my version using ACR.​
    Well worth the extra time considering the huge benefits of metadata editing as opposed to pixel editing.
     
  160. Andrew, no arguments there.
    But what exactly is metadata editing? Or do you mean I'm editing to compensate for the lack of metadata not provided by the old lens I was using?
     
  161. Tim Lookingbill [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 09, 2009; 03:06 p.m.
    From the look of your images in your PN gallery it appears you should spend some time getting to know some of Adobe's secret sauce.
    Tim, I'll let you know if I want critiques of any kind.
    With your background in photography, I'm amazed that you'd make such a statement.
    Wouldn't you have thought that I've used p/s, didn't see the need for it, and moved on ?
    Tim Lookingbill [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 09, 2009; 06:09 p.m.
    Can you post the results of the one minute edit using your simple editor?
    Sure I could, but from the tone of your comment above, I'm not sure you'd appreciate it, so what's the point ?
    Bill P.
     
  162. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    But what exactly is metadata editing?​
    Metadata (or parametric editing). You’re not editing pixels in ACR or LR. You’re editing a text file that defines rendering instructions for the creation (from Raw) or new RGB pixels. This is unlike Photoshop editing where you are editing pixels. The closest thing we have in Photoshop to this are adjustment layers. They describe how to bake the pixels into new numeric values which take place when you flatten or print the document.
     
  163. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    Tim, I'll let you know if I want critiques of any kind.
    With your background in photography, I'm amazed that you'd make such a statement.​
    Tim, this is typical of B’s comments about photography and such silliness was directed at me in another post on white balancing. He really thinks he’s a talented photographer (I will avoid commenting on my impression of his work since its only one opinion and would do nothing to change his mind of his “work”).
     
  164. Hey Willy, the point is to learn and exchange pertinent information here.
    Your initial statement doesn't tell anyone anything except how wonderful you are as a photographer in that you get beautifully dynamic looking images straight out of the camera just by nailing the exposure from your many years as an accomplished photographer.
    You seem to have developed a massive ego with a brush off attitude to anyone who questions your expertise similar to the college professors I walked away from when I first got into commercial art and design in two established schools I attended after high school.
    I saved a lot of money in tuition doing that and also discovered something about myself throughout my 50 years in that I seem to have a real difficult time working with A-holes and still do to this day.
    I ended up teaching myself what I wanted to know and still do to this day. My PN bio illustrates that.
     
  165. Andrew, thanks for the explanation on metadata editing. I'ld forgotten about the actual meaning of that term from when I last heard it discussed over at Adobe Camera Raw forums.
    I constantly get metadata and EXIF data mixed up and forget the differences between them. EXIF is the container format standard and metadata is merely the instructions contained.
     
  166. Tim Lookingbill [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 10, 2009; 01:19 p.m.
    Hey Willy, the point is to learn and exchange pertinent information here.
    Tim, I know what you're thinking. Did he cheat and use photoshop ? did he use Paintshop Pro, Corel, Gimp, or maybe his handy-dandy "simple" photo editor ?
    Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself.
    But being as this is Photo dot net, the most powerful photo website in the world, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, Tim?
    Just kidding about the "Dirty Harry" paraphrase, but seriously, which one's which ?
    Oh dear................
    Bill P.
    00UiBa-179389584.jpg
     
  167. Nice work on those.
    Now it's been established that you do know how to edit an image very quickly with a competing imaging software. One minute for each of those versions is pretty fast. You got me beat in the speed department.
    Now my next question concerns the five images that are in your PN gallery. Are those unedited, straight out of the camera? Are they considered your best? And if not your best, could you post an image (outdoor scene, not studio) you consider your best without any post processing. I have to see if it's possible to get a great shot straight out of your camera as well as establish what you consider an acceptable image that doesn't need any further edits.
    Nothing I've shot ever comes out of my camera not needing some editing according to what I consider acceptable. We don't know what you consider acceptable or good for that matter.
    There's another thread in these forums that has photographers stating they only have to edit about 10% of their images out of the many they take. Of course they don't state what they consider acceptabe either. Pretty much makes the info exchanged there useless.
     
  168. Tim Lookingbill [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 10, 2009; 01:19 p.m.
    You seem to have developed a massive ego with a brush off attitude to anyone who questions your expertise similar to the college professors I walked away from when I first got into commercial art and design in two established schools I attended after high school.similar to the college professors I walked away from when I first got into commercial art and design in two established schools I attended after high school.​
    That explains a lot. I didn't walk away, I sat in class and learned.
    And graduated.
    And I'm the know-it-all with the attitude problem ?
    Good to know..................
    Bill P.
     
  169. Well to get back on topic I just found an image I was going to toss because it was a quick shot that ended up having focusing and depth of field problems trying to get used to a Sigma 70-300mm AF zoom lens. The subject was moving toward me as well so I had to get out of the way.
    After editing in ACR I still didn't think it was useable until I found a sweet spot setting in two go rounds with USM in CS3 that miraculously salvaged it. See below the results. Frankly I'm surprised how well it came out on such a soft focus shot.
    00UiIM-179445584.jpg
     
  170. Tim Lookingbill [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 10, 2009; 04:29 p.m.
    Nice work on those.

    Now it's been established that you do know how to edit an image very quickly with a competing imaging software. One minute for each of those versions is pretty fast. You got me beat in the speed department.
    Now my next question concerns the five images that are in your PN gallery. Are those unedited, straight out of the camera?
    Hi Tim, Sorry I took so long to get back to you, but as you can see by the time stamps, I can devote only a little time to these forums.
    To answer your question, let's get in agreement on the term "manipulated", which in this context is the same as "retouched", "edited", etc.
    I use the definition of "unmanipulated" as put forth by the moderators on this website.
    Here it is, in its entirety.....
    http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation
    Definition of Unmanipulated
    by Philip Greenspun
    Your photos in our database here at photo.net are intended to help other readers learn how to become better photographers. It is helpful for them to know whether the photo is more or less as it came out of the camera ("unmanipulated") or whether the photo has been significantly altered ("manipulated"). In other words, to produce a image like yours, do they need to work on their camera technique or their Photoshop technique?


    Unmanipulated
    •a single uninterrupted exposure
    •cropping to taste
    •common adjustments to the entire image, e.g., color temperature, curves, sharpening, desaturation to black and white
    •dust spots on sensor cloned out
    Manipulated
    •double-exposure or fragments from several exposures
    •geometric distortion, e.g., to correct perspective
    •adjustments to just a part of the image, e.g., dodging and burning


    For those readers old enough to remember film, "unmanipulated" is a slide processed through standard chemistry; "manipulated" would be a black and white print that had been heavily dodged and burned.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This definition was collaboratively produced by the photo.net forum moderators.
    Article created February 2007
    Okay then, in accordance with their definition, I'm sure we can agree that what comes out of a digital camera is a data file, not a negative, positive, etc.
    Every file type has to be converted into something viewable, using software. Just as in "wet" photography, numeroius processes have to be applied just to get someting usable from the celluloid. So when I say that my photos are completely unretouched, you can count on it.
    As an aside, I get a kick out of the mods when they mention "photoshop" technique as opposed to "editing" technique.
    .....or their Photoshop technique?
    I'm sure you're aware of my thoughts on Adobe's market penetration.
    As for what I consider my "best" photos, I'm not clear on what you're driving at.
    It's impossible to really guage a photo from a 24 kByte file, and what's the point anyway ?
    And that would be off-topic.

    Bill P.
     
  171. William, not sure how your example of different editor is relevent..all i see is a different sharpening process, or amount i should say.
    You really seem to hate Adobe with a passion..why? did you work there and been put aside?.. Sure you can get a lot of program to edit your image, and personally i could car less..for the moment you make a good final print, wathever tool you use to go there is certainly good. The fact is that many pro and non pro use Photoshop because it is the most documented, and it have the biggest community, so why bother with other? Im sure they all do good thing, but since 9 out of 10 photographer use it, why dont use it also and speak the same language... The funny thing is people seem to make complaint when a companie doestn do well, and make the same complaint when it does...Nobody force anyone to buy a product or a system, but if zillion of people get Photoshop it must be for a reason? Like word, excel, powerpoint, Windows, OS X etc...even if alternative exist and free one.
    Same with Ligthroom, so for me, using and mastering those 2 software is a no brainer; i can developed and work on ANY camera type and brand and have only to understand 2 software!..why not? and lucky me, they are both from the same developper team..even better. I dont have time to learn 1 software for one camera, then learning another one for editing, then another one for digital management, then... i use 1 that do it all, and for me all correctly.
    I like when people claim to do editing fast, but without proof it doestn mean anything..and between you and me, i also can edited my 500 vacation shot in less than 10min with ligtroom... 10 min for all of them. When its not for a paying client, i can just use Lr and apply a recipe to zillion of images and be probably happy with the result. But i also have a strong web site, where you can see the quality of my work, and even at a small size you can still see this uality, so i dont think that when you say you cant see it, it really true (well have a look at my web and let me know if you can or cant..a lot of photographer who hire me have never seen my paper protfolio..they do it only because of my web site)
    I think it help having images to show off your work to reenforced your point of view, not mandatory, put it add a little bit of seriousness to it for sure. Since whe dont see much of your images, it could be hard to take some of your comments seriously i think.
    So if you care about a answer i will appreciate, and after that lets get back on topic with example and text that could help newbie around here ; )
     
  172. Patrick Lavoie [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Oct 13, 2009; 09:14 a.m.
    .....So if you care about a answer i will appreciate, and after that lets get back on topic with example and text that could help newbie around here ; )
    Hi Patrick,
    I don't disilke P/S. I've used in the past, and fornd that I don't need it. What I don't like is the cultish allegiance to a program that most people can barely afford, and don't need.
    I posted the various pre-print examples to answer a question asked by Tim L.
    If you look closely, the are numerous other pre-print decisions there besides sharpening.
    I do these posts to show people that p/s/ is not the be-all end-all and that there are many alternatives.
    I posted the maximum 5 photos that is allowed for non-members.
    I appear on numerous other sites with different work.
    Try me at BWAC, for example.
    I have to get to work now, I hope I have addressed at least some of your questions.
    Bill P.
     
  173. Bill, i understand your point, the fact is that the example you provide dont have the same sharpen factor..so if you wiskçh to make a comparaison, one that have a certain impact or to prove a point, i think you could have at least apply the same sharpen factor so people would have focus on what is the others difference, and better understand your point fo view (even if most would agree that different softwares could yield similar result).
    All i see if the same image with different setting. And i think it also help doing this kind of comparaison when you are efficient on all the software you compare (i dotn say you dont, but if you dont use much Photoshop youre limited experience could be a problem to properly demonstrate your the validity of your point).
     
  174. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    What I don't like is the cultish allegiance to a program that most people can barely afford, and don't need.​
    Again, your personal preference interfere with others perfectly reasonable and acceptable need for the product. Barely afford? I can pay for it in a days work with money left over and so can thousands if not more users. YOU don’t need it. Just say that and move on. The bias is so obvious and your consistent need to push your agenda onto others is as tiring as Mr. Beck’s rant above.
    I have to get to work now....​
    And maybe we can take up a collection to get you a copy of Elements (which at $99 is a pretty awesome product).
     
  175. Andrew Rodney [​IMG][​IMG], Oct 13, 2009; 09:45 a.m.
    Just say that and move on.
    I do, but people keep asking the same question.
    Bill P.
     
  176. digitaldog

    digitaldog Andrew Rodney

    I do, but people keep asking the same question.​
    So true, its all over the web: “Mr. Palminteri, sir, should I buy Photoshop, do I need it? Is it worth the money? What do you really feel about the company”? Shame on all those people who don’t know better.
     
  177. As an ex-Leica film man digital photography has been an eye opener for me. I use a 40D plus excellent lenses like the 100mm Macro f2.8. The 17-85 zoom should not be ignored and I have had some good results with it.
    I became aware that sharpening was important but some of the stuff I read was obsessional convoluted rubbish! I think Patrick has managed to present sharpening as it should be and I was very impressed by his article. I follow it very carefully. I use the Canon DPP plus CS2 if I need it. I must admit I am not too good with layers - I have no idea how to do them! I will learn.
    The snag I hit was the flattening stuff. When I try to go to Flatten Image it is greyed out and it doesn't work when I click on it. I must be doing something wrong. I will persevere.
     
  178. Patrick Lavoie [​IMG][​IMG][​IMG], Oct 13, 2009; 09:44 a.m.
    Bill, i understand your point, the fact is that the example you provide dont have the same sharpen factor..
    Hi Patrick,
    I never intended to do a heads-up comparison, as you know, different programs use different algorithms, so a side-by-side comparison would be tricky.
    I did want to show that these pre-print processes are not mysteries that take hours to be slaved over with exotic software, and numerous different apps can perform the same tasks.
    I downloaded and read your treatise on sharpening, and found it interesting and informative.
    Well done, and thank you.
    Bill P.
     
  179. P A T R I C K - T H A N K S F O R T H E P D F , I L O O K F O R W A R D T O
    T R Y I N G IT
    O U T.
    T O M
    ( H A R D O F H E A R I N G A N D A S L O W T A L K E R. )
     
  180. Patrick,
    thank you for the very good tutorial and the following discussion.
    I have just started looking around for ways of sharpening images in post-processing, so forgive a naive question ;) When do you apply noise reduction and when do you apply sharpening?
    In my case, I would initially edit an image in Lightroom, then export it to PS, do noise reduction in Noiseware (external plug-in for noise) and then sharpening with Smart Sharpen (until yesterday it was High Pass ;)).
    However noise reduction reduces details, as well as sharpening produces some noise.
    Would you run noise reduction again, before Step 2 or Step 3 sharpening?
    Noiseware plugin has options for both noise reduction and sharpening, although I have no idea how they work together.
    Would be great to hear how you handle noise together with sharpening.
    Radek
     
  181. Folks complaining about using capital letters. You have too much free time, give me a break.
     
  182. I haven't posted here for years, but I'm glad to make my first post back in one of Patrick's helpful tutorial threads. When I was last heavily involved at Photo.net, Smart Sharpen was only available on the latest releases of PS. Since I had an older version, I was still using USM. But now that I've got a more modern version of PS, I'm looking forward to migrating to Smart Sharpen. Having known (in a fashion) Patrick for many years, and seen the quality of his work and tutorials, I'm glad to have found a SS tutorial from him.

    I haven't checked, but is he still around the community and posting tutorials/actions? I hope so! :)
     

Share This Page