3 STEP SHARPENING

[carol_cornwell]

<p>Hi Patrick,<br>

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! :) <br>

Carol C.</p>

[petr_tyll]

<p>Very good Patrick! Thank you!</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Hey...Just as a contrary comment:</p>

<p>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?<br>

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.</p>

<p>Anyone feel the same?</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>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.</p>

[sebastianmoran]

<p>Thanks, Patrick, for the very helpful writeup. I do have a couple of comments.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

4. FWIW, I like the capture sharpening I'm getting in Adobe Camera Raw.<br>

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.)</p>

[allardk]

<p>@ MS Keil:<br>

I think (but do not know for sure) that Smart Sharpen is based on a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconvolution#Optics_and_other_imaging">deconvolution</a> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Sorry for getting a bit technical...</p>

<p> </p>

[frederick_stevens1]

<p>Kindly do not upset or criticise my friend Patrick in any way. I like him and he can do anything he likes - well almost.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone feel the same?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

<p>If plug-ins are really necessary is a matter of debate. Some will indeed make life somewhat easier.<br>

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.</p>

<p> </p>

[sondador]

<p>Very helpful article. I'll definitely try out your suggestions, Patrick.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[megan_stone]

<p>Patrick, as always, thank you for all the help you offer.<br>

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%.<br>

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%</p>

<p>thanks</p>

[dan_south]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p><em>Je voudrais vous remercier pour l'article intéressant.</em></p>

[jeffrey_prokopowicz]

<p>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!</p>

<p>BTW, haha, thanks Patrick!</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Stephen...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid so.<br>

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.</p>

<ul>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

<li>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.</li>

</ul>

<p>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.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>The PK Sharpener....well this is interesting.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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

[david_amberson1]

<p>Smart Sharpen</p><div></div>

[david_amberson1]

<p>PK Sharpener set to Wide Capture. Notice the gritty look in the color part of the eye and lashes I spoke about.<br>

BTW, none of these are sRGB. They look a little off casue all were output with Adobe ICC set. OOPS</p><div></div>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Camera RAW default set for my 1D Mark III</p><div></div>

[david_amberson1]

<p>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.<br />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.</p>

<p>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. <br>

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:-)<br>

But until then....</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>Joseph? you remove me from your black list of people you wont read? good to know... ; )</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>thanks.</p>

<p>____</p>

<p>I will answer all the others questions Monday morning..im off for the weekend ; )</p>

[frederick_stevens1]

<p>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.<br>

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.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>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).<br>

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. <br>

The manual states clearly:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>

<p>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.)<br>

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. <strong>In some rare cases, applying Wide Edge Sharpen to an image with tiny details may obscure rather than reveal them</strong>, 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.</p>

</p>

</blockquote>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p><strong>To Patrick</strong>. 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.<br>

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.</p>

<p><strong>To Andrew</strong>, 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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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

[david_amberson1]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

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

[jeff_schewe]

<blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>If you wish to advance your knowledge of the subject, I suggest you read this "<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rant23b.shtml">The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online</a>"</p>

<p>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?</p>