peter_stacey

<blockquote><strong>Dan South wrote -</strong> <br />

<p>Are there any titles that you'd recommend?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In addition to the title already mentioned by Hal, there's:</p>

<p><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Photographic-Composition-Tom-Grill/dp/0817454276/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255757420&sr=1-1">Photographic Composition</a> </em> , 1990, by Grill and Scanlon<br>

<em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/ref=pd_sim_b_4">Learning to See Creatively</a> </em> , 2003, by Bryan Peterson</p>

<p>Like, <em>How to Compose Better Photos</em> , both also provide a good introduction to the subject of composition.<br>

However, after that, the much more useful:</p>

<p><em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Perception-Imaging-Third-Photography-Seeing/dp/0240809300/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255757342&sr=8-1">Perception and Imaging</a> </em> , 3rd Ed., 2007, by Richard Zakia</p>

<p>In my opinion, the last provides a real education in the subject and requires a couple of reads through and a lot of application to really grasp what it is saying.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<p>Kiti,</p>

<p>Since you are talking about an Australian ship, the Australian copyright information might be a useful thing to look up. It will apply within Australian waters at the least, but I would imagine it will apply in general to your contract.</p>

<p>From the Attorney General's website:</p>

<p>http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/page/Copyright</p>

<p>Specifically, see this page:</p>

<p>http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_Whoisacopyrightowner</p>

<p>(read the second sentence on that page).</p>

<p>However, best thing is to discuss this as part of the negotiations and ensure it is clear to both parties before you sign a contract.</p>

<p>Regards,</p>

<p>Peter</p>

Looking at your Flickr stream, on the photography side, one thing I would recommend that I didn't see above is the purchase of a diffuser.

Since you like natural light and also like to shoot with the subjects in full sun at times, there are a few shots in your stream that have failry hot skin on the highlight side (eg. leo framed 7, leo framed 3, Day 120, leo framed 26, leo framed 24, etc.).

That's not to say that those shots look bad. They don't and are quite pleasing, but a diffuser would help you to control those highlights and hold detail on the light side of the face. Since you are probably working alone, a stand for the diffuser would also be of use as well, although that isn't as good as finding someone to assist.

A simple 5-in-1 (white diffuser, white reflector, silver reflector, gold reflector, black) is fairly cheap, but from what I see in your Flickr stream, I think its almost a natural choice for you (and I'm sure you'll find some really creative ways to use it because you seem to have a fairly natural eye for a shot).

Regards,

Peter

Richard,

In relation to DNG profiles, see the Adobe labs here:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles

and some explanations from Eric Chan here:

http://labs.adobe.com/wiki/index.php/DNG_Profiles:Editor

For Prague, right in the centre of town there is a really fine photoshop that will have all your needs. Photoskoda is located in Vodi?kova (that's the street name) and is very easy to find (but hard to leave the store).

The website is here:

http://www.fotoskoda.cz/intro.asp?lang=en

As for good street photography locations, there are too many to list. Prague is known as the Paris of the East and it has this reputation for a good reason (I like it more than Paris actually). Don't worry about finding locations, just make sure you have plenty of film (and memory if you are also taking digital) because your biggest concern won't be in finding photographic locations, but in trying not to shoot everything. It's really a magical city and in November there could be snow, which will add to the atmosphere.

As for Paris, it's a little bit the same. Too many locations for photography to list and a good way to get around is on the tourist buses. There are several routes and you can buy 2-day tickets for the buses that allow you to hop on and off whenever you like. I'm not so familiar with photography stores in Paris, but a couple of useful links:

http://www.gisparis.com/paris_shopping/shopping_a_camera_in_paris.htm

and (photo.net's own guide to Paris):

http://www.photo.net/france/paris

Regards,

Peter

>As most of you know, Rowell and his wife Barbara passed away in a plane crash in September, 2002.

And more the pity. He had a great eye and could write like Dickens (well maybe not like Dickens, but he was good and entertaining at the same time).

Bruce's book pretty much established the advantages of a 3-pass sharpening work flow to achieve the optimum result for an image and I moved towards this approach when Bruce's and Jeff Schewe's articles on the approach first started to appear.

The testing that I have done has shown that for most images, the 2 or 3-pass workflow is the best approach to achieve an optimally sharp image, although I have found some images where other approaches have produced superior results. Some of Bruce and Jeff's articles can be found here:

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

http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-a-two-pass-approach-sharpening-photoshop

http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-thoughts-on-a-sharpening-workflow

http://www.pixelgenius.com/tipsandtechniques.html (see the last article for Jeff Schewe)

The first three of those links give a bit of a chronological order to the development of the 3-pass workflow and the last is a good read from Jeff.

In answer to some of the questions that have been posted in the thread, I hope the following answers and comments are useful:

1. A 3-pass workflow will produce optimum results, but if you are unsure about what you are doing, you might find it easier to stick with a single pass of sharpening and the end of the workflow (but be aware that this is rarely producing optimum result - though the results may definitely be adequate, especially for non fine-art work).

2. If you don't know how to prepare a mask and sharpen through it, then the sharpening tools in ACR and the develop module of Lightroom will be of great assistance for capture sharpening. They both create a mask on the fly and where LR/ACR do it as you change the settings, the equivalent mask in Photoshop requires 21 steps to produce. Additionally, the final application of steps in the RAW conversion is written to apply everything in an optimised series of steps, so you can safely apply noise reduction and sharpening the the raw converter and the final image export from the converter will produce an optimum result.

3. @Ellis, PKS from Pixelgenius is the plugin version of Bruce's workflow, but the developments of sharpening in LR have basically replaced it now. I know that for example, Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe now do just about all of their capture sharpening in LR/ACR now and while I'm not sure what they are doing since the release of LR2, Jeff was heavily involved in the development of the creative and output sharpening (since Bruc'es death), so I suspect that they probably do all of their sharpening in LR where they can (though Jeff may comment if he reads this thread). Effectively, in LR, Adobe have taken the 3-pass workflow and written it into the program, so the need to go to PS for PKS is not as great as it was with LR1.

4. @Eric. If you are printing bigger than the native size of the file for the resolution that you would normally want, Bruce showed that the result was just as good and sometimes better, just by sending the file at it's native size and printing at reduced resolution. However, if you are printing at a smaller size, then resizing to a set resolution should give you some advantage. For example, if you are printing at 4 x 6 at 300 dpi, then resampling to 1200 x 1800 pixels + the application of output sharpening in LR should give you the best result. LR will resample and then apply output sharpening, which is the best approach and you should manually do it in that order if you choose to do it in Photoshop or another program as well.

5. @Ted. Glenn Mitchell's LTR sharpening scripts are a very good free tool and they were Glenn's approach to implementing Bruce Fraser's workflow. The main advantage of the Photokit Sharpener over TLR is the level of testing that went into it's development. Not that the TLR tools are poorly developed, they aren't and you can openly look at the scripts and work out the entire workflow yourself. What I have found in testing is that TLR does as good a job as PKS for most images, but for some images, PKS has some clear advantages. For 90% of my work, TLR would do as good a job as PKS, but for me, its often the 10% that involves critical work, so I don't want to accept 2nd best (though I don't use PKS regularly either. I've awlays done things myself, but have always used PKS as the benchmark to measure my own methods).

Sharpening seems to be one area of digital workflow that confuses people, but once you get your head around it, things can flow very quickly. In my opinion, Lightroom, especially since the release of v2 is great for most work, if only Adobe would add softproofing (in a much more user friendly way that it is implemented in Photoshop) and perspective corrections, I'd hardly have to use PS anymore (though I love it anyway).

I hope there is some useful information in there somewhere.

Regards,

Peter

If you import without generating a jpeg preview, the Library module will only show the in camera jpeg (normally it will initially show the in camera jpeg, but will then go through and produce its own version).

So what is happening is that you are probably seeing the in camera jpeg preview in the Library module, but once you go to the Develop module, Lightroom is generating an image based on the default settings. If you don't like the default settings for LR/ACR, then you can develop your own default settings, or it's easier to install the new DNG profiles and set one as the new default.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Peter

I had BGLOD with an early production D70, but no other problems with any of my bodies, film or digital.

My bodies over the years have included F3, F4, D1H, F80, F90x, F100, D100, D70 and D200. I plan on upgrading to the next pro model assuming it is announced with HD video capability and based on my previous experience, I'm not expecting any problems.

Regards,

Peter

@Andrew: "As far as I'm concerned, if anyone wasn't around in the old days of photography, they don't understand

photography."

In the introduction to The Photographer's Eye, John Szarkowski included a quote from an English writer (E. E.

Cohen) who

complained that the invention of the dry plate had "created an army of photographers who run rampant over the

globe, photographing objects of all sorts, sizes, and shapes, under almost every condition, without ever pausing

to ask themselves, is this or that artistic?... They spy a view, it seems to please, the camera is focussed, the

shot taken! There is no pause, why should there be? For art may err but nature cannot miss, says the poet, and

they listen to the dictum. To them, composition, light, shade, form and texture are so many catch phrases...."

The quote is from 1893. Had the writer been writing a few years later after the Kodak camera came out, by

comparison he might well have had a stoke in the process. The same tired arguments come up time and again in the

film v digital debate.

So irrespective of your own position, you really are in the same group as the rest of us. There is always someone

who, as the quote demonstrates, was around earlier and who can take the same self elevated position that you have

taken. By their standards, you like the rest of us, may be just a snap-shooter with has no regard to aesthetics

as it was

applied to the days of the wet plate.

Harbouring negative opinions about other people you don't even know doesn't help anything and certainly won't do

anything to change their approach to the medium or encourage them to look at things from a different perspective.

In the end the only person it affects is you. People can't help when they were born or when they began

photography. By dismissing a large group of people, you are only closing yourself off to the possibility of

seeing something in a new way that you hadn't thought of before.

As Bryan Peterson (and others) indicates in his articles on this site and his books, the essence of a camera

hasn't changed. It's a light proof box with a lens on one end and a light sensitive medium on the other. The laws

and physics of light haven't changed, so in terms of producing compelling images that communicate strongly to

their viewers, surely someone who began with digital has just as much chance as someone who started with film.

The light and compositional guidelines are the same in both cases, even if there are differences the tangible

qualities of the medium.

Regards,

Peter

Nikon did have printed brocures at Photokina, but not camera specific brocures that I'm aware of.

I'm looking at the Total Digital Imaging System brocure and Digital Imaging Technology brocure right now. Of course both are in German, which is exactly what I would expect for a convention held in Germany, although I think they also had English versions as well.

The issuing of CDs isn't something that was specific to only Nikon, it was done by several manufacturers, including Epson, who provided CDs only and had no printed brocures.

Nothing wrong with it in my view. If I want to upgrade a camera, I don't base my decision on the brocure, I get down to a store and try the real thing. The value of a printed brocure as a mechanism to decide on a purchase is pretty small in the photographic industry and the ease of distributing multimedia marketing information over the internet really reduces the value of static printed material even further.

Just a sign of the times and certainly not Nikon being stingy, just them moving with the rest of the industry.

Tim,

There shouldn't be any need to spend a lot of time getting the contrast back in your highlights. If you have applied ETTR correctly, then you can do it very quickly in ACR when you convert the RAW.

In ACR, the "Exposure" slider controls the position of the white point and the "Blacks" slider controls the position of the black point.

So if you have a histogram that is shifted to the right but with no clipped highlights, then as a workflow you should be able to :

1. set the white balance first

2. go straight to the "Blacks" slider and drag it to the right to set your black point (if you hold the alt or opt key, it will show you when you start to block the shadows)

After those two quick steps the should already see an increase in contrast because you would have stretched the histogram out over almost the full range available.

3. go back up to the "exposure" slider and set your white point for the finer setting of the brightest part of your image

4. use the "Brightness" slider to adjust the distribution of tones, or if you prefer, use the tone curve option (although in the RAW converter it's primarily designed for fine control, not gross movements).

That's a workflow that you should be able to apply within seconds.

Regards,

Peter

Dick and Mark,

Just to let you know, now that I've had a few hours today, I've been finalising stuff for the page I'm developing and the first information will be up on Sunday (28 Oct).

It's been longer than I was expecting due to a busy work schedule since travelling on Monday and also because the information has been undergoing some creep in scope and is rapidly growing into a site devoted to sharpening and noise reduction.

So I've decided to just get the information up starting slowly and building on it continuously.

I can't post it up tomorrow because I'll be out shooting all day after working tonight, so it will be on Sunday.

I will link to it from here and the previous thread and I said earlier and hopefully the information will be useful.

In relation to the high-pass filter method mentioned in the previous post, that can certainly be used for many images at output, but it can be improved on and I'll post that in the page as well.

Regards,

Peter

Marc,

Just a quick note on the issue of global capture sharpening, in the previous thread, that was in reference to doing capture sharpening if you aren't using either ACR4.2 or LR1.2

The engine in ACR4.2 and LR1.2 are the same and the capture sharpening is applied through a mask.

In order to see the mask, in ACR4.2, view the image at 100% magnification and then hold down the alt/option key while moving the sliders. You'll see the mask, sharpening with, etc. on the fly as it is generated. It's a good way to adjust your sharpening to avoid enhancing noise or sharpening skin, etc.

Specifically in relation to skies, you'll see a big effect when holding down the alt/option key and moving the "detail" and "masking" sliders.

I'll cover more on this in my email to you this afternoon (as well as on the webpage).

Regards,

Peter

Hi Marc,

I hope you received my initial response to your email.

And just to post here as well as in the previous thread. I've finished travelling now and after heading to work for today, I'll get the additional details on sharpening posted asap.

Regards,

Peter

Dick,

Just to let you know. I've arrived at my final destination now and will get the additional details up asap.

Regards,

Peter

That last bit (ie. final conversion) depends entirely on the lab.

If your lab accepts Adobe RGB embedded files, then I would leave the file in Adobe RGB. When you softproof using the printer profile, the adjustments you then make to the file will change the RGB values so that even if the file is left in Adobe RGB, it will print properly when the printer RIP converts the image to pigment/ink on paper.

Some pro labs will accept Adobe RGB tagged files, many consumer printlabs won't and will expect a file in sRGB.

So, the best way is to check with your ptinter (most have the information available online).

If you are printing yourself, I'd leave it is AdobeRGB and send the data as is to the printer.

Regards,

Peter

Dick, thanks for the feedback.

Having re-read the post, I think I can make things much more clear by posting a page off PN, including the actions and additional information.

Today I found out that I am heading to Oregon for 7 weeks on Monday, so I have been a little busy at work and then with my wife and kids and haven't finished off the work yet.

So, I hope you don't mind waiting for a complete view (as I see it) to be posted. At the latest, I will be able to finish everything on Monday during the flight from Amsterdam to Washington and then I'm in Washington overnight so should be able to post things then.

If I get some spare time over the weekend, I'll certainly upload things earlier if possible.

Regards,

Peter

Tone mapping to produce a pleasing image of a HDR scene is something I have started using and am enjoying the outcome.

I don't like the overly processes look that can appear in HDR images, but I have a feeling that they result, because people tend to apply tone mapping to images that don't really need it. All they really need is some proper exposure at capture and some good regular processing. However when people tone map these images, they change the color to ridiculous looking images that have a very plastic look.

Some like that look. I personally don't.

However, you can produce very natural results when the image warrants the technique.

As an example of my own, here's one from last Sunday:

http://peterstacey.com/pics/LPS14_HDR2WEB2.jpg

To me, this has a natural look and was produced from 6 bracketed exposures.

Like I said at the start, I'm only a recent convert to HDR, but I'm definitely happy with the results I'm getting so far. So, I'd be happy to discuss the technique I have developed so far.

One thing I should say is that at the moment I'm not using Photomatix. I'm using CS3 and using merge to HDR under the automate function.

My understanding is that the HDR function in CS3 is improved over CS2 (I never used it in CS2 before I upgraded) and I'm finding it to be both quick and acceptable in terms of results.

I am planning on trying Photomatix as well to see if there is any difference.

Regards,

Peter

Just to add, you need to assign a profile to the image (in your case Adobe RGB) so that the computer knows what language you are trying to represent by the RGB values.

By definition, translators must translate between two languages. So you are saying, the file is speaking Adobe RGB and then the translator (spider2 profile) says, OK, I can convert that language into the screens language.

So, use Adobe RGB for the file and let the operating system translate those numbers for output.

Regards,

Peter

The spider2 profile is only a translator between the RGB values in your file, and the output for the screen.

You don't use it in Photoshop at all, it's your operating system that needs it in order to display color correctly.

By default, your monitor is loaded with a factory profile when you first get it, and the colorimeter allows you to keep the color on screen the same as the screen ages and drifts away from the factory performance.

So, the spider profile isn't sued in Photoshop on your file. Just let the operating system use it and be happy knowing that the operating system is correctly translating the Adobe RGB values into the numbers for the screen.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

Peter

From reading your post, I think you are on the right track in general, but my interpreation of what you wrote indicates it's not all right yet, so I hope the following is helpful.

An easy way to conceptualise profiling and calibrating is to think of languange translation. Imagine that you have something to say to someone, but you don't speak their language. If you use a trnaslator who can speak their language, then the correct message will get through.

This is how calibration and profiling work. Screens speak a different language to printers, so you need calibrate/profile your monitor and have a profile for the printer in order to make sure that the message gets through correctly.

So, you have a message (your image file) and you need to display it on screen. You profile your LCD screen and use the profile to help the screen to understand exactly what the RGB values mean.

Then, you adjust the image and you want to output it to the printer, and get the same color. In this case, you now need a profile that tells the printer in it's language, what mix of pigments/ink to use in order to keep the message correct.

I hope that is understandable. Basically, profiles are just trnaslators that let each piece of hardware know how it should output color.

So the process should be to profile your monitor and afterwards, the profile should, by default, be loaded when you switch the computer on. This should be automatic and you don't need to change it until next time you profile your monitor.

Since you are shooting RAW, it doesn't matter what colorspace you tag the file with, you can select any colorspace when you open the file in your RAW converter.

So assuming that Adobe RGB works for you, then select Adobe RGB in your RAW converter and then in any program that you do your editing.

At this point, you'll have a file where the RGB numbers refer to Adobe RGB values and your profile will convert those numbers into the correct values for the screen to output consistent color.

After you finish your edits in Adobe RGB, then you need to see how the file will look in print. The best thing to do is to soft-proof the image using the profile for the printer.

This will effectively translate the new RGB values (since editing) into numbers that the printer can understand and then show you on screen the result.

Soft-proofing (ie. stay in Adobe RGB, but softproof with the printer profile) is generally a better way to operate IMHO, than to convert to the output profile. Keeping the file in Adobe RGB (or sRGB for many commercial printers) will allow you to easily translate the numbers again down the track if you want to print to a different printer (which will speak a different language again and will need a different profile).

So, in CS2, under the view menu, setup your softproof to use the icc profile for the printer/paper combination and then before output press Ctrl-Y (Windows shortcut key) or enter softproof through the view menu and this will translate between the printer language and the screen language and show you onscreen how the print will look.

At this point, you'll usually need to apply a couple of adjustment layers. Normally for me this would be a curves adjustment (to apply an S-Curve) and a saturation adjustment to increase saturation. These two usually are enough, although if the print is going to be too dark, then I sometimes also use a levels adjustment layer.

After that, the file can be sent to the printer and if your color management is good, the print will closely match what you are seeing on screen.

I hope that has been useful.

Regards,

Peter

Just to recap, so far we've covered capture sharpening using the sharpening module in LR, which applies a gentle sharpening through a mask in order to bring back the sharpness lost during capture (I will follow this in the next post for those not using LR).

We've also covered the mid-tone contrast boost using the clarity slider, and by running a high radius low amount unsharp mask if you aren't using LR.

The original Mac Holbert method for the mid-tone contrast boost (and actually this is closer to how LR does it with clarity) is to copy the image to a new layer, change the blend mode to "overlay" and then run a high-pass filter (Filter - Other - High pass) with a radius that roughly matches the size of the file (so pretty big radius). The mid-tone contrast boost is really a tonal adjustment rather than a sharpening (I didn't quite word it right up above), but the nett effect is the make the image look sharper to the eye and a lot more snappy. When doing it in Photoshop (or other program), it's good to change the blend mode of the layer to "luminosity" (to prevent color shifts) and to pull the blend-if sliders for the layer in a bit to confine it to the mid-tones so you don't blow the highlights or block the shadows.

Capture sharpening and a mid-tone contrast boost are fairly easy and quick to do, especially to do the capture sharpening in Lightroom. For weddings, just select the portrait sharpening from the presets and be done with it (some more information on this in the next post). This is fast and it should produce an acceptable result.

But this still isn't the end of sharpening. As a minimum, you should also apply some output sharpening designed for the intended output.

Why? Because just like there will be some softness when you capture a digital image, the same occurs when you convert that image into a stream of ink or pigment on paper. Printers also have limits to their resolving power and so some softness is introduced at print.

Also, our ability to see detail changes as we move closer or further from an image (eg. move away from your computer screen and after a few feet you won't be able to read the text - the same is true of a photo).

As a result, we need to account both for the softness of the output medium and the intended image size and viewing distance; and if we want the image to look nice and sharp, we need to sharpen at output.

Traditionally, all sharpening was held over until output because doing it wrong at an early stage created bigger problems later in the workflow and was harmful to the final result. So capture sharpening should not make the image look like it has been sharpened, it should just make the image look good on screen (ie. not soft).

To continue, because we need to account not only for the output medium (eg. a printer), but also for the intended size and viewing distance, it is important to do the final output sharpening at the final image size and resolution. So if you are reducing the image size (eg. for web display) or increasing it (eg. for a large canvas print) then you need to change the size of the image first, before final sharpening.

If you sharpen and then reduce the image size, then the sharpening will be averaged away as the pixels are merged and if you do it before enlarging, you could see the sharpening after printing (and that isn't good).

This is where the problems start to arise with sharpening and trying to produce an image that will print good.

If you are going to be displaying on screen, then it is easy to just make the image look good on screen, because that is your output medium. However, LCD screens are sharper than CRTs, so if you are using a CRT, you need to be careful not to overdo it because to most people, the images will look crunchy because most people will see the image on an LCD. I do all my sharpening for web images using an LCD, specifically because an oversharpened image looks terrible, whereas a slightly soft image viewed on a CRT is a better alternative.

But, if you are preparing an image to print to a printer, it is unfortunate that the state of the industry is still at the point where the best result is achieved by printing the image to see the result and then adjusting the sharpening and re-printing.

This isn't really acceptable, especially for high-volume photographers, so I hope the following guidelines help:

1. to judge the final sharpness of the print, don't view the image at 100% on screen. Screens are low resultion devices (mine runs at 92 ppi), but we print at much higher resultions (eg. send data at 300 ppi). So, viewing an image at 25% or 50% magnification on screen will give you a better indication of how sharp the image will be in print. So after sharpening, view the image at 50%. If it looks oversharpened, then reduce the sharpening until it looks good. If it looks a bit soft, then apply stronger sharpening.

[sorry I can't give you some magic numbers, but more on that below and in my next post].

2. For output sharpening, you don't need to worry too much about trying to sharpen through a mask. In my experience and testing, for acceptable results, you can apply a global sharpening via USM or smart sharpen on a new layer and it will be OK. If you've been careful up to that point, this shouldn't enhance noise or other artifacts and make them ugly.

this makes the overall workflow relatively fast for high volume users (eg. wedding photogs). You can apply your capture sharpening in Lightroom (which does it through a mask), adjust the image, resize and then apply a global sharpening on a new layer for output. After viewing the image at 25% or 50% maginification, you'll have an idea of how sharp it will look in print.

3. If you apply output USM or a smart sharpen and it looks good at 50% magnification, then at 100% it will look crunchy and ugly. Don't worry, it will print good. That takes a leap of faith to believe, so the easiest way is not to believe that statement, but to test it yourself.

Because a properly sharpened image will look slightly crunchy at 100%, the temptation will be to reduce the sharpening so that it looks good. That's not what I would do, but I'm printing myself mostly and printing low volume, so I can spend the extra time to get an optimum result. If you are a wedding photographer, then you might feel safer going for an acceptable result (slightly softer image) rather than an optimally sharp image (except for maybe a few special images). But I would recommend you test the crunchy looking image with your printer (your own or your print service and have a look at the results).

4. It's difficult to give specific numbers because different print sizes and output mediums require different sharpening to get the best result.

However, one method that you can try (and see my next post for a lot more information] is to do the following (very quick method):

1. copy the image to a new layer;

2. change the opacity of the layer to 66%;

3. change the blend mode of the layer to luminosity;

4. double click on the layer in the layers pallette to bring up the layer styles box;

5. pull the blend if sliders in slightly (5-10 points) to protect the darkest shadows and highest highlights;

6. Apply a USM to the layer;

7. Start the amount at 500, the radius at 0.1 and the threshold at 0;

8. increase the radius by 0.1 point at a time until you see the image pop in the sharpening window (trust me you'll see it around 0.3 - 0.6);

9. After the image pops, either leave things as they are and click OK, or increase the radius a couple of more points and reduce the amount to around 300-350 and then increase the threshold a few points (to about 3-4) and click OK.

10. immediately run a HIRALOAM sharpening as per Matts post above.

That is a rough method, but because the opacity of the layer is reduced and the blend-if sliders are pulled in slightly, the results should be OK.

It's quick and should be acceptable for most situations.

However, if you aren't doing wedding photography and don't need a fast workflow, then I'll follow this post with another that gives a number of other options and after I go and create a few actions in PS, I'll post a link to them so you can download them and try them out.

I hope that this has been useful and if I think of additional things, I'll add them to the thread.

As a final note I should add three things:

1. Bruce Fraser's book Real World Image Sharpening is very good and is worth getting. It was only published this year and it has already had a major impact on sharpening ideas and workflows.

2. Bruce's work along with the work of Jeff Schewe is available as a sharpening plugin for Photoshop. It's called the Photokit Sharpener from Pixel Genius. I don't use it for my sharpening, but I do use it to test everything I do against. It is regarded as the best sharpening system by many leading people. If you want a system that has a multitude of options for different outputs, it is worth looking at. A trial version can be downloaded and used. With it, you can do your capture sharpening in LR and then creative and output sharpening in Photoshop using selections from within the plugin. It then takes care of things behind the scenes.

3. As indicated above, another post will follow this, but it's getting late in Europe, so I might not finish the actions and additional post until tomorrow (I'll make some test images available as well and explain how to use the sharpening routines with them).

Regards,

Peter

Charlotte,

sorry to say I can't help on the NYC question, but since I live in Den Haag, I'd love to know who you use in Amsterdam.

Any chance you could give them a free plug here so I can look them up?

I hope that is OK, otherwise feel free to ignore this post.

Regards,

Peter