Superior web sharpening

[matthewkane]

Hello,

I have noticed some photographers seem to have much sharper images on the web than most others.

For example please look at the photos on this site <a href="http://www.symobius.com/

lobby.html">Found here</a> Usually when saving pics for the web as a low res jpeg they end up not

quite so sharp afterwards. What sharpening techniques or steps do I need to take in photoshop to

achieve such sharp results on the web?

Thanks!

[geoffs1]

Bruce Faser (among others) has written quite a bit about sharpening techniques and workflow. Bruce's book "Real World Sharpening" is great, and I recommend it highly. This <a href="http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html">article</a> contains a great wealth of information on the topic - GSS

[matthewkane]

<a href="http://www.dailysnap.com/2006/1230.shtml">Another example</a>

How is this so tack sharp?

[leicaglow]

Try saving at between 72-150 dpi. Also play with the quality settings. In some programs you can use High Quality and add very little to the file size. In Photoshop CS2, rather than just saving the JPEG, save it as a web image. Also, slight oversharpening will not be as noticeable on the web as it is on a print. Boost color saturation. Some shots benefit from lower dpi settings. These are just some of the things I've found.

[evan_goulet]

It also helps to have a tack-sharp lens to start with. I can see the difference between the kit lens on my camera and my prime lens right out of the camera. The prime is so much sharper, particularly at extreme apertures.<P>For the second photo you posted, Google "Dragan Effect" It is a combination of layers of curve/contrast adjustments and sharpened layers. <P>As for your dpi, for the web it doesn't matter what dpi you set for your photo. On a monitor, a pixel is a pixel. A picture that is 4" x 6" at 100 dpi, will display the same as a photo that is 2" x 3" at 200 dpi. All that matters for web display are the dimensions of the image in pixels. <P>Conventional wisdom is that your final step before saving (after downsizing for the web) should be sharpening. Look through the article Geoff posted.

[Matt Laur]

I've fought with that issue a lot. In fact, just yesterday, I was <i>trying</i> to make it hard on myself with:

<br><br>

  <a href="http://www.uplandlife.com/users/matt/2007/01/10/" target="_blank"><b>this test shot</b></a>

<br><br>

The solution is usually to dial back the compression to virtually none... which is mean to people with dial-up connections, and if you have a busy web site, you'll feel it in your bandwidth costs. But that's the only thing that preserves the pixel-by-pixel complexity of the image, and thus the perceived sharpness.

[ellis_vener_photography]

I also recommend the late Bruce Fraser's "Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe

Photoshop CS2" Book. I use the sharpening tools Bruce created,

 

<A HREF = http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/index.html> PhotoKit Sharpener</a>

and the accompanying manual <P>

<a HREF = http://www.pixelgenius.com/downloads/Sharpener-Manual-123.pdf> Photokit

Sharpener manual link</a>. Photokit Sharpener is the best and most valuable plug-in for

Photoshop I've ever used, and it works with Photoshop 7, PsCs, PsCs2 and now PsCS3

(beta ,for Intel powered Mac's ) and for Windows as well as Apple OS X

[eric friedemann]

1. Yes, after you downsize an image down from multiple megabytes to, say, 350x500 pixels and under a quarter of a megabyte, you need to resharpen.

 

 

2. Like Ellis, I'm a big fan of PhotoKit Sharpener. However, for web images I often just resharpen with Photoshop's Smart Sharpen.

[gluteal cleft]

<p>The first photos I looked at aren't any more sharp than most, they've just been given the illusion of being sharp - to the point of being <i>overly</i> done, looking aliased, jaggedy, and annoying. What you see there is entirely different from a truly sharp image.</p>

 

<p>I posted an exagerated example of the idea in <a style=" { color: #0000A0; text-decoration: underline;}" href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HI2L">this</a> thread, you may want to take a look.</p>

 

<p>I don't ever sharpen photos that are the size I would use on the web - the very act of sizing them down so far has the side-effect of making them look sharper anyway, without any of the annoying consequences of the poorer artificial "sharpening" methods.</p>

[eric friedemann]

"(T)he very act of sizing (photos) down so far has the side-effect of making them look sharper anyway(.)"

 

 

Huh?

[gdanmitchell]

There are a lot of factors that could go into this. (In the examples, I do notice what would

be too much sharpening in a print.)

 

After the usual sharpening steps that I would use for a print, after downsizing for web

presentation I do one additional unsharp mask at 25,1,1 (or up to as high as 45,1,1).

 

But it is about more than just the sharpening technique I think - as someone pointed out,

additional saturation, curves/levels, etc. play a big part.

 

Dan

[don_e]

I agree with Steve that the photos are obviously sharpened -- and 'obviously sharpened' means it is not done well. But I don't understand how sizing an image sharpens it.

 

I prefer the terms "definition" and "detail" to sharpness, and that one should sharpen for small web display to some point before it is obvious at that size and format. Sometimes sharpening isn't needed so much as contrast. I use usm for local contrast enhancement, and downsample with bicubic sharper, if needed.

 

Nothing will make for sharpness more than a good lens, good lighting, and good exposure.

 

--

 

Don E

[gluteal cleft]

<p><i>""(T)he very act of sizing (photos) down so far has the side-effect of making them look sharper anyway(.)"

<br><br>

Huh?"</i></p>

 

<p>Did I stutter? :-)</p>

 

<p>Take a 35mm negative, and print it at 4x6. Then print it at 20x30. Which one will look sharper?</p>

 

<p>Now take a not-so-sharp digital image. Print it at 4x6. Then print it at 20x30. Which one will look sharper?</p>

 

<p>Now, take that full-sized digital image, and view it at 100% on your monitor. Take another copy of it, and size it down to 400x600. Which will look sharper?</p>

 

<p>steve</p>

[evan_goulet]

The printing a 35 mm negative is not downsizing, it is enlarging. So, of course the 4x6 will be sharper because it is enlarged less than the 20x30 print.

[evan_goulet]

As for images for the web... when I have worked on an image for a print, say 4" x 6" at 600 dpi, I sharpen it in Photoshop at 25% viewing magnification (this gives me on-monitor results that approximate what I will see in print). Then if I re-size that image down to 400 x 600 pixels, it is noticeably less sharp. It requires a final sharpening (via un-sharp mask) to get a web-sized photo that approximates the sharpness of the higher resolution image. Looking at the large file at 100% vs. a 400 x 600 pixel image is comparing apples to oranges.

[eric friedemann]

I would observe that no image down-rezed from a large file to a 72 p.p.i. web-sized image is going to look as good as a well-made print from a 300 p.p.i. or larger file. You just do the best you can to make the web image look decent.

 

 

Here is an image cropped somewhat from a 6x7 cm color negative, scanned on a Nikon LS 8000 scanner at 4000 p.p.i. The intermediate file I downrezed this image from is 270 megabytes and 700 p.p.i. The intermediate image was capture sharpened in PhotoKit Sharpener; which is to say mild sharpening was done to reverse sharpness lost during the scanning process.

 

 

The first web image, downrezed to 72 p.p.i., was not sharpened after being made smaller. The second image was precisely sharpened with PhotoKit Sharpener's web sharpener. We're all entitled to our opinions, but I think the sharpened image looks better on my computer screens.<div></div>

[eric friedemann]

---<div></div>

[gluteal cleft]

The second image looks jaggeddy and artificially harsh. It doesn't look like a sharp photo, it looks like a photo upon which someone used too much sharpening.

[eric friedemann]

Steve, perhaps you like this image better with sharpening of the whole image except for Uncle Sam's striped pants. The jaggies are removed.

 

 

To your earlier point, though, 8x12 prints of this image are razor sharp. Downsizing this image- any image for that matter- to a few hundred pixels by a few hundred pixels at 72 p.p.i. will not make the image appear sharper.<div></div>

[gluteal cleft]

The jaggies and obviously artificial artifiacts are still there in the flag and (especially) the foliage. It makes the picture look quite unnatural. Your unsharpened version looks better.