Jump to content

Less than impressed with Smart Sharpening


Recommended Posts

  • 3 months later...
  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Boy, I wish I could go back and change the subject of this to "Very impressed with Smart Sharpening." I am investigating GIMP wavelet sharpening, and have new-found respect for Patrick's suggestions.

 

BTW, comparing Jacopo's image just above, Patrick's Smart Sharpen is much sharper, but that could be just because the JPEG is Q94 1x1 instead of Q90 2x2. I think Tim had the images mixed up when he compared; the names are similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

<p>I've read all of this as well. It's not all that explained up above.<br>

<br />For example -- is Patrick recommending Smart Sharpen at 225% and 1.1 at full resolution (say 18MP from my 7D) before downsizing for Web use? (say reduced 700 to 1200 px wide). And when downsizing use Bicubic (not "Sharper") then after the SS was applied at full res.?</p>

<p>Also, recently (Dec. 2010?), Patrick is using USM again -- he wrote he used "15-15-0" on nearly all his images.<br>

-Ken</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

<blockquote>

<p>Ken Papai wrote:<br /><em>Also, recently (Dec. 2010?), Patrick is using USM again -- he wrote he used "15-15-0" on nearly all his images.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Patrick Lavoie wrote:<br /><em>the usm is more for a local contrast enhencement a la clarity slider kind of. i use it only, and only for that purpose : )</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Ken,<br /> Can't answer your other questions, but if you'd like a more elaborate explanation of Partick's use of USM, refer to the <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00XI4x"><em>Mac Holbert's Mid-tone Contrast Enhancement action</em></a> thread and check out Ron Bigelow's <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/localized-contrast-1/localized-contrast-1.html" target="_blank"><em>Localized Contrast in Photoshop</em></a> tutorial where he painstakingly explains every nuance of this trick.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>wow.. i read this article quickly.. i like thing simply explain, less technical... for user that want a explanation to the core of the trick.. he is good. But a simple 15-15 or 20-20 in the amount and radius box do a good result.. without too much unneeded information for the rest of us ; )</p>

<p>but thanks for the link, im sure many will appreciate.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...