Sharpening for Photo Books

[keith_plechaty]

<p>I'm unsure about how to approach sharpening of individual photos for my photo books. Here's the workflow I follow to print books at Shared Ink:</p>

<ol>

<li>Import RAW images into Lightroom 2.</li>

<li>Color Correct/Sharpen images within the Develop Module</li>

<li>Export RAW images as Tiffs at max res and import into an InDesign template created by me. Inside of InDesign I resize photos to the desired size.</li>

<li>Create a PDF of the book and then convert PDFs to JPGS to be uploaded to Shared Ink. (They only accept JPGS from a program like InDesign.)</li>

</ol>

<p>Here are my questions:</p>

<ul>

<li>In step 3, when I export RAW images as Tiffs to place into InDesgin, what sort of Export Sharpening should I be using? LR has matte and Glossy, and then 3 strengths of sharpening. I generally print on matte paper so I know I could use matte.</li>

<li>When I finally decide on the size of my images within InDesign, do I need to re-export each image from Lightroom at the correct size? I normally include 100s of images in my books and it would take quite a while to do this.</li>

</ul>

<p>Thanks, any advice is much appreciated!</p>

[godfrey]

<p>I use Apple's Pages rather than InDesign, but it's pretty much the same thing one way or the other. </p>

<p>I do the book design first and export the images from Lightroom to the correct sizing at the correct PPI density, with standard export sharpening for the book's matte or semi-gloss paper surface. Lightroom's export sharpening is adaptive to the sizing and density it's exporting and does a good job. </p>

<p>BTW, I have found no visible difference between exporting JPEGs at 100% quality or TIFFs when it comes to building books with InDesign or Pages. JPEGs are a heck of a lot smaller and easier to handle in layout operations. </p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>It is not wise to apply sharpening until the image is at the size it will be presented at wether that be electronic presentation (monitor) or print.</p>

<p>If you sharpen, then re size and image, the benefits for sharpening are lost.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It is not wise to apply sharpening until the image is at the size it will be presented at wether that be electronic presentation (monitor) or print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Most experts now recommend two-stage sharpening, once on input and once on output. A third intermediate stage often called "creative sharpening" is sometimes also used. A good explanation can be found <a href="http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf">here (pdf.</a>)</p>

<p>Is the paper for the book matte or glossy?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Export sharpening (and print sharpening) in LR is based on an ink jet output. Your book is probably a halftone device. That said, you have three “strengths” in LR, you might need to do a test. What is useful is the output sharpening in export is based on the image size you ask for. So ideally you would output (export) the size and output rez you wish to allow the output sharpening to be properly targeted. </p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>First of all, allow me to say I disagree with Godfrey - there's no way Pages is anywhere near InDesign! The former, while perfectly nice for home use, does not even come close to the immense power, flexibility and features of the latter.</p>

<p>Having said that, Jeff is correct - you need to sharpen twice: once when exporting from LR to get the actual photo sharpening where you want it and then once from InDesign to take into account any image size adjustments you may have introduced. At this stage, please bear in mind that InDesign does its own little sharpening (automatically) for photos size-adjusted at around 10% of original size - for all others you're on your own.</p>

<p>From LR you export full resolution TIFFs, right? You do not need to re-export them once you're done working with InDesign. The PDF you create - assuming you're using the correct settings (now, THAT is a whole new chapter!) - is perfectly okay. I would, however, pay special attention to the JPEG conversion later - if you do not export the PDF correctly, the resulting JPEGs may break apart...</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Yes, Pages is no InDesign (agreed). <br>

Saving out of LR at full rez (and sharpening at that size which is what it will do for output sharpening) then bringing that big honking file into InDesign (and expecting it to apply sharpening which it will not do) is not a good idea for a number of reasons. For one, you sharpen then ID samples down to size at RIP or when building a PDF so there is a size/sharpen disconnect. Next, you are linking or sending huge files that don’t need to be that size for output. </p>

<p>Figure the sizes you wish in LR, export and sharpen. They are then exactly sized and sharpened for that need. Then link or embed the images in the ID doc, they will come in to size so all you have to do is place them. </p>

<p>I build books for digital presses this way ALL THE TIME. Works like a charm, keeps the PDF much smaller and most importantly, the output sharpening from LR is based on the correct image size. </p>

[keith_plechaty]

<p>Thanks for all the responses! So the consensus is generally to do the creative sharpening in the develop module, then do the output sharpening, but only apply output sharpening if you're working at the actual size that you will be using the photo.<br>

The question now is, if I print on matte paper, I will use the matte setting, but what strength would be best to use? The book printer recommended I have some samples printed to see if I could tell the difference.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>There is no creative sharpening in Develop but it is Capture Sharpening. See http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html <br>

The sharpening in LR/ACR is based on PhotoKit Sharpener which does have Creative Sharpening (done in Photoshop). <br>

The differences between the strengths is pretty subtle. When we developed the standard sharpening in PKS, two members of the team thought they needed to be a tad less and the other a tad more. So when Adobe put PKS into LR, they provided three settings. Again, the difference are subtle. If you can do a test, so much the better. If not, Standard should be fine however, this output sharpening is based on the size of the image you export and is for Inkjet output. </p>

[godfrey]

Jeesh, I never said Pages was "as good as" InDesign or anything like that. I said I do the same thing using Pages. It

produces the result I want and costs a fraction of the Adobe product. Why the "disagreement"?

 

 

The procedure I use is the same as what you are recommending. When I need the additional things InDesign can do, I'll buy it.

[keith_plechaty]

<p>Sorry, I was using the incorrect terms. I meant I first do Capture Sharpening with Lightroom and then would do the Output Sharpening. Since the output sharpening is based on an Inkjet printer and I will be printing with a halftone dot, should I just NOT do output sharpening at all?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>You need to do output sharpening. Ideally its based on the capture sharpening. I suspect you can use the output sharpening in LR after a test. The alternative would be to export to size without output sharpening which is of course an option, then use something like PhotoKit Sharpener which does have a setting for halftone. That output sharpening would work well with the capture sharpening done in the raw pipeline since its based on the same technology. But rather than spend $99, test the same image or better, a few with the output sharpening in LR with the three strengths or even just Standard and High. Images should have high frequency areas (fine ruled lines) and smooth areas (skin) to give you a good idea of how the images will print with both rounds of sharpening. </p>

[keith_plechaty]

<p>If the output sharpening for LR2 is based on an Inkjet, then should I even be using output sharpening from LR2 since I am printing to an HP Indigo?</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>The indigo is a halftone process and so its not the same as an Inkjet. But I suspect that you may find one of the three settings provides adequate output sharpening. And of the various digital presses (Nexpress, Xeikon, Indigo), the Indigo is a pretty sharp appearing output process. Its worth a test because if you like the output, you’ll save a lot of time doing this at export to size in LR.</p>

[keith_plechaty]

<p>

<p >I think I may have come up with a solution to quickly resizing images in InDesign and output sharpening them with Adobe Lightroom 2. Basically, I'd be following a similar path that I outlined above.</p>

<ol >

<li >Import RAW images into Lightroom 2.</li>

<li >Color Correct/Sharpen images within the Develop Module</li>

<li >Export RAW images as Tiffs at max res and no output sharpening and import into an InDesign template created by me. Inside of InDesign I resize photos to the desired size.</li>

<li >When I am sure about the size, I run a script that resizes all the images in photoshop and re-imports them back into InDesign at 100%.</li>

<li >Take those same resized images and import them into LR 2. Export the images from LR 2 with export sharpening. Then update everything in Indesign with the export sharpened images.</li>

<li >Create a PDF of the book and then convert PDFs to JPGS to be uploaded to Shared Ink. (They only accept JPGS from a program like InDesign.)</li>

</ol>

<p > </p>

<p >Does all of that make sense? I have a few questions about this process:</p>

<ul >

<li >Will the image quality be the same as if I exported them from LR 2 with export sharpening applied at the very beginning (That would take place in step 3 if I actually did do export sharpening.) If this actually works, it would save a ton of time! </li>

<li >My other alternative would be to purchase PhotoKit Sharpener and automate the output sharpening with the InDesign script and take LR 2 totally out of the output sharpening stage.</li>

<li >Also, when I actually resize images in photoshop with the InDesign script, should I be using Bicubic sharper when reducing the size?</li>

</ul>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks again for all the help and advice.</p>

</p>