Over Sharpening?

I have recently been getting to grips with my scanner to get some of my backlog

of film online. One of the criticisms levelled at using scanners and/or

Photoshop to create a digital version of an analogue image is that people have a

tendency to over-sharpen.<br>

So far I have erred on the side of only doing minimum sharpening to bring the

image into what looks to be correct focus in the sharpest plane. Occasionally I

have been tempted to rack up the unsharp mask beyond the 150-200% level but

while this can look OK in Photoshop I don't want to fall into this trap.

Has anyone come across any useful guidelines regarding the appropriate use of

unsharp masking.<br>

Steve , I think the best guides are

 

1) as little as possible

 

2) 'what looks right is right'.

 

Incidentally like many photoshop functions unsharp masking began in 1930's as a 'wet' photographic technique as described here :

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

Steve, I don't do unsharp masking with my Nikon scanner. I turn off the scanner's masking.

 

 

Instead, I do "capture sharpening" to make up for the slight loss of sharpness that occurs during scanning. Then I do precise "output sharpening." I use PhotoKit Sharpener and have never had an oversharpened image:

 

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/pk-sharpener.shtml

 

 

http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/

 

 

I would note that PKS automatically performs its own masking and other sharpening functions in a matter of seconds. There's no guess work, as you tell the program what your source is- i.e. 35mm positive film- and what your output is- i.e. matte, inkjet paper.

I have to agree 100% with Colin. I think what digital has done is to induce a craze for over sharpening and over processing in general. The prime importance is the image. Processing is often done simply "because everyone else does it" and often it detracts rather than adds to the impact of the picture.

 

Bear in mind also that the degree of sharpening depends upon the image size and its proposed use (e.g. print or screen). In other words dont just apply the same default to everything - scan and then sharpen each image consistent with its proposed usage.

 

all the best

 

David

Nothing is better than trial and error at the size print you wish to make. Settins will depend on the available detail of the subject. At any given size print, different subjects will require differt settings. A full size print need not be made. A cropped section on a 5x5 paper of a larger print is sufficient.

 

A strip test can also be made similar to what you did to estimate exposures in the darkroom.

 

Google HIGH Pass Sharpening. It confines sharpening to edges and stays away from smooth areas such as skies. Simple and effective.

As Eric said, I don't do any sharpening in PS and I have turned off the automatic sharpening feature in my scanner software. If a lens is bad I want to see how bad it is, same for the good ones. It seams that digi-world is taken away by some sort of a competition: the sharpest, the most striking colour, the most HDR-ish, ultimately the un-natural.

Some may like it but In my opinion the digi-world today produces more illustration work than actual pictures. Not that is anything wrong with illustrations...

I agree with David Hibberd on sharpening. I guess we should be thankful that digital can make things so sharp, but it's another case of unreality in photography. The world is just not that sharp (until you cut yourself on it, that is).

Hey Steve!

 

I agree with Colin - as little as possible and only if it actually enhances the subject.

 

Mike

I agree and disagree with what's been written. Oversharpened prints scream "digital" and look awful. At the same time, I see numerous digital prints from scans that look soft. This is particularly true of prints 8x10 inches and larger.

 

 

At the store I work at, I see prints from customers who've shot with high-end cameras and lenses and have nailed the exposure and focus. Unfortunately, they try to guesstimate on sharpening and wind up over- or undersharpening.

 

 

I would again recommend PhotoKit Sharpener, as it applies the precise amount of sharpening needed- media-specific capture sharpening and output sharpening. I don't think its possible to oversharpen with PKS and it remains the best $100 I've spent in digital imaging.

No matter what you do, you can't get more sharpness than was on the original negative. No scanner or software is that clever.

<i>No matter what you do, you can't get more sharpness than was on the original negative. </i><P>

Sure you can. You can't create more detail or resolution than in the original source, but you can definitely make things sharper.

Many thanks for the input everyone; you've given me some good pointers and confirmed that it's not a completely cut and dried issue although eveyone seems to be in agreement that they know over-sharpening when they see it and it looks awful.<br>

I am just using a flat bed scanner, not a dedicated film scanner at present and am really only concerned with uploads for monitor display. Currently I am not printing digitally.<br>

I will take a look at the Photokit Sharpener and the high pass sharpening method as I had never heard of this at all. I am presently only scanning 35mm as this is all my scanner will handle but near future I hope to something capable of scanning up to half plate. However I want to ensure that I have become reasonably competent with my existing scanner before I spend the bigger money on something more versatile.<br>

Thanks again everyone for the input. I would also welcome suggestions regarding the new scanner up to about $1000.<br>

Steve

I second the recommendation of Photokit sharpener. It speeds my process, does not over sharpen in either capture or output sharpening and I occasionally use spot sharpening on an eye or something that I would like to standout. a little. It stops the trial and error agony on each picture. I can manually sharpen but usually defer to PK>