3 STEP SHARPENING

<p>Hi,<br /> 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<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>here's a quick example of smart vs high pass (USM would have give the same result as High Pass)</p>

<p>*im open to all suggestion and newer technique, with example if you can would be the best.</p><div></div>

<p>WHY ARE YOU SCREAMING AT US?</p>

<p>BECAUSE I LIKE IT.<br>

but other than that, have you something else to say to help other?</p>

<p>No, I'm seriously asking you why?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 ; )</p>

<p>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".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Otherwise,</p>

<p>THANKS PATRICK!</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Good point Tim, i think after all i can just give the link here so people can served themself ; )</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>so heres the link for the lucky one who will stop by the big title...</p>

<p>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 ; )</p>

<p>No its not a virus..its a zip file containing a PDF tutorial..you can download it.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Your thoughts on this?</p>

<p>Patrick, that pdf you linked doesn't have any images to show the results from applying your technique.</p>

<p>Can you provide a version containing the images?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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;</p>

<p>eyes, lips, hairs for portrait</p>

<p>metal, logo, leather for car</p>

<p>trees and rock for landscape</p>

<p>for example.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Have a look at my web site, you should see sharp images withotu the usual oversharp problem.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>Patrick, FWIW (oops, was that screaming? Sorry!), I read upper case titles as instructional in nature, so it works for me.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Another consideration is the difference in format sizes. A larger format scan can be sharpened a lot more.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>Patrick, this is what I get viewing in Preview, Mac OS 10.4.11.</p><div></div>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>i offended you? sorry. Now let me know if those screaming title have make you stop and learn,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, no, they didn't make me "stop and learn".</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Noting this, I'm quite inclined to put you on my list of people to never read. Have a nice life.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Other user have problem with it?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>