do you crop first & then sharpen or vice-versa

[JAPster]

<p>Hi folks...<br>

I'm curious about how serious image editors sequence their cropping vs their sharpening.</p>

<p>For example, if you have taken a nice horizontally oriented raw picture of a person, with the intent of cropping it later to make a vertical 8.5 x 11 portrait, do you advise doing the 8.5x11 ratio crop first, and then do a sharpen on the cropped image.... OR.... do you do your sharpen first, across the entire raw image, and then do the 8.5 x 11 ratio crop.</p>

<p>I've done it both ways, not sure which way is really the best, but am slowly coming to an opinion that i get a better result of i crop the image to 8.5 x 11 format first, and then apply a sharpening. This sequence seems to produce a high quality image, at least with the s/w app i'm using.</p>

<p>But i'm very curious to hear how more experienced people handle this, and which approach they use, and why...</p>

<p>AP</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

I do a two stage sharpening:capture sharpening in the raw processor and then output sharpening based on the size,

reproduction method, and media.

[parv]

If the frame as a whole looks good, then I would sharpen first. If rest of the surroundings are not appealing, then I would crop first.

[johncrosley]

<p>I learned something by viewing an Internet instruction to posting members of a large stock agency (one of the world's two largest), which I won't name.</p>

<p>In the video, the agency supposed that its members were developing their captures in Adobe Camera Raw and that they had two methods of sharpening, either viewing their captures with 'preview' sharpening, but no actual sharpening as the image was moved from Adobe Camera Raw to Photoshop, then sharpening in Photoshop, or contrariwise, sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw and doing little and/or no sharpening (or no substantial sharpening) in Photoshop, to say it better.</p>

<p>They recommended, almost required that their members do their sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw because they said the sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw was more natural, whereas, they opined that sharpening using Photoshop tools such as unsharp mask, etc., tends to leave little halos, even if tiny ones if the 'tool' is applied only a little.</p>

<p>I tried their method, and I'm very satisfied that they have the best solution, though there is a limit to the amount of sharpening one can accomplish in Adobe Camera Raw, so additional sharpening may be necessary, and in any case a small amount (and I do mean a VERY SMALL AMOUNT) of additional, finishing sharpening may be necessary.</p>

<p>The reason I say a 'VERY SMALL AMOUNT' is that the two sharpening methods (ACR and Photoshop USM or similar) are additive and using both to any degree can quickly leave horrible artifacts on an image.</p>

<p>At one time I tried using Adobe Camera Raw with 'preview' sharpening, which means the raw image was carried over to Photoshop with NO sharpening, then using Unsharp mask or 'smart sharpen', and that provided satisfactory results, especially if the capture was saturated enough and had a low enough ISO number indicating very good quality, but if the ISO number was much higher, that method tended to produce degraded images on sharpening.</p>

<p>The worst is to use the two methods together to produce SUBSTANTIAL sharpening, one then the other, as opposed to using Adobe Camera Raw sharpening, then using Unsharp Mask or Smart Sharpen to finish but only in very small numbers.</p>

<p>I find using the agency's recommended methods, I'll be reprocessing a number of images that looked unnatural which were processed using 'preview sharpening" (e.g., no sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw) then sharpened with Unsharp Mask. I think I can get much better image quality with NO or very little artifacts by comparison using the stock agency recommended method versus using USM and smart sharpen -- the methods I was using before.</p>

<p>Under no instance use ACR then smart sharpen in large numbers for strong sharpening unless the capture absolutely demands it . . . . and in such an instance sometimes the strong (or second) sharpening might be applied only to a 'selection' rather than the whole image, or MORE for a selection, then LESS for the rest of the image (use select for initial sharpening>invert to choose the remainder to apply the remainder to sharpen more but not so strongly.</p>

<p>'Selecting' is not just for making ordinary image edits.</p>

<p>I'm very happy with the stock photo agency recommended method -- the video I saw explained it well, and my practical experience is proving it out.</p>

<p>I will apply additional sharpening as necessary.</p>

<p>I apply cropping in general at one of two places.</p>

<p>1. If I am going to use the cropped image only, I often will crop in Adobe Camera Raw, making use of the 'aspect ratio' on the cropping guide, which I find useful, since I value having crops to certain aspect ratios in many circumstances.</p>

<p>2. If I am unsure how I'll crop, or if I want (A) a full size image and a (B) cropped image, then I'll hold off to Photoshop for my cropping.</p>

<p>In that case it would make sense to either do Photoshop sharpening (final sharpening if any) at the end, but I would do major or most sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw, but on occasion,I might sharpen the image (final touches only) before duplicating it for a double crop.</p>

<p>(say a full scene and a partial scene such as a half or quarter frame of an interesting part or a head and shoulders portrait of a subject from the frame)</p>

<p>This is similar to the last sentence in the response above, except that response presupposes that sharpening will take place in the image editor, not in the 'raw editor', which is contrary to how I have only recently begun to do it. (and happily so).</p>

<p>john</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

<p> </p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I agree with the response by Ellis. </p>

<p>I always sharpen during the raw processing, not a lot, more around clarity controls</p>

<p>My workflow starts with figuring out the size, material i'm printing on, the distance it will be viewed from. While that sounds daunting, photoshop plugins like Nik Sharpener Pro has a lot of presets that can take alot of the guess work out of it. It's a great starting point and learning tool. It also has some great tools for selective sharpening</p>

<p>My recommendation for workflow:</p>

<ul>

<li>Pre-sharpen within the raw processing step</li>

<li>Crop the image based on output desired</li>

<li>Resize to match desired output size - don't rely on Photoshop, use better 3rd party tools</li>

<li>Sharpen as needed - again, I recommend Nik Sharpen Pro to get you close</li>

<li>Save this out as a seperate file with print size as part of the file name</li>

</ul>

[digitaldog]

<p>http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask <br>

Here's the ground breaking sharpening workflow proposed by Bruce Fraser that ended up in Lightroom and ACR (two of the three sharpening processes, no creative sharpening). <br>

I'd always opt for a raw, parametric edit then one stamped into actual RGB pixels in Photoshop. Faster, actually non destructive unlike PS, better data, applied in the optimal processing order, not the user order. </p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>To be clear, sharpening has <em>nothing</em> to do with cropping (except insofar as cropping affects other issues to be listed momentarily). IMO, what matters most is that the sharpening be appropriate for the ultimate size and use of the image, which means that at least some of it should be done after scaling to the output size. The ultimately-desirable parameters, and maybe even type, of sharpening will usually differ substantially for a file intended to make a 16x20-inch print, versus one intended to make a 5x7-inch print, versus one intended for 1024x768-pixel display on a website.</p>

<p>Other things that matter are the stage(s) at which you sharpen (e.g., as part of raw conversion, at a final step to prepare a print- or screen-ready file), how you scale the image to the final output size, what tools you use to sharpen, and how you view the image to decide how / how much to sharpen (e.g., at 100% on the monitor, 50% on the monitor, etc.).</p>

 

[Dave410]

<p>John -- can you post a link to the instructional video? Thanks.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>The process I use depends on the camera and the wavelengths I am capturing. This is because I shoot in normal human eye light and also in digital infrared. Each has its own demands. In both cases I use ACR to adjust the exposure levels and to correct issues with the picture.</p>

<p>With normal light photos I am looking to eliminate chromatic aberration as this will give you a sharper image before doing any color adjustments. I found it too difficult to sharpen in ACR and have an image I liked after outputting it. Clarity as a tool needs to be used carefully as too much will destroy the smooth transitions of the contrast.</p>

<p>IR photography has shown me that Chromatic Aberation is not present. However, ACR does not read the red channel properly and photographs lean to the magenta look due to this. Canon's own software with cameras does not have this problem but lacks the sophisticated controls of ACR adjustment tools. IR should not be sharpened in ACR as it is already noise heavy. A better method of "sharpening" adjustment for both color and B&W IR photos is in Photoshop unsharp mask but not using the controls and settings as most people use it. I studied it and came up with a better method that subtly separates the grays better and this creates a visually sharper image.</p>

<p>When I started applying this approach of unsharp mask with IR photos it also improved color vibrancy. I have found my approach also works well with normal color photos.</p>

<p>My thoughts about what I was doing lead me to see that clarity from accurate focusing can also be defined by good separation of tonal values. So flat contrast images and slightly out of focus images can be improved by a better separation of the tonal values. I am not talking about dodging and burning as that is added manipulation beyond a good basic image.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>