3 STEP SHARPENING

digitaldog · October 9, 2009

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.

</blockquote>

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.

</blockquote>

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?

william l. palminteri · October 9, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 09, 2009; 10:01 a.m.

</blockquote>

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........

</blockquote>

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.

digitaldog · October 9, 2009

By the way, what's your point here ?

</blockquote>

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?

william l. palminteri · October 9, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 09, 2009; 10:30 a.m.

By the way, what's your point here ?

</blockquote>

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?

</blockquote>

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.

digitaldog · October 9, 2009

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.

william l. palminteri · October 9, 2009

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=361342">Andrew Rodney</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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.

</blockquote>

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.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 9, 2009

If your shots are so bad that they all need an overhaul with Adobe, then you should probably be doing something else.

</blockquote>

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?

william l. palminteri · October 9, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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?

</blockquote>

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.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 9, 2009

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.

digitaldog · October 9, 2009

It took me a bit longer than that to arrive at my version using ACR.

</blockquote>

Well worth the extra time considering the huge benefits of metadata editing as opposed to pixel editing.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 10, 2009

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?

william l. palminteri · October 10, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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.

</blockquote>

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 ?

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 09, 2009; 06:09 p.m.

Can you post the results of the one minute edit using your simple editor?

</blockquote>

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.

digitaldog · October 10, 2009

But what exactly is metadata editing?

</blockquote>

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.

digitaldog · October 10, 2009

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.

</blockquote>

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”).

Tim_Lookingbill · October 10, 2009

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.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 10, 2009

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.

william l. palminteri · October 10, 2009

</blockquote>

william l. palminteri · October 10, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Oct 10, 2009; 01:19 p.m.

Hey Willy, the point is to learn and exchange pertinent information here.

</blockquote>

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.<div></div>

Tim_Lookingbill · October 10, 2009

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.

william l. palminteri · October 10, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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.

</blockquote>

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.

Tim_Lookingbill · October 10, 2009

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.<div></div>

william l. palminteri · October 13, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1722891">Tim Lookingbill</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub5.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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?

</blockquote>

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.....

<a href="../photodb/manipulation">http://www.photo.net/photodb/manipulation</a>

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

</blockquote>

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?

</blockquote>

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.

patricklavoie · October 13, 2009

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 ; )

william l. palminteri · October 13, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=760139">Patrick Lavoie</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Hero" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/hero.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub7.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, 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,

</blockquote>

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.

patricklavoie · October 13, 2009

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).

Sign In

3 STEP SHARPENING

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in