M9 Files and Sharpening in Photoshop

[dalecook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've done numerous searches to see if this question has already been asked and answered. Unfortunately, everything that turned up addressed workflow but not my specific question. So, I will apologize in advance if this has already been posted.

 

What sharpening settings are folks using in Photoshop (preferrable CS4) with their M9 files for the following print sizes ranging from 8x10 - 12x16? From a workflow perspective, I do this operation last so I'm not looking for sharpeing settings in ACR.

 

My Canon 1d Mark II files always required a lot of sharpening. By contrast, my Epson RD-1 files required far less (150 with a radius of .5). I keep hearing that M9 files do not require as much post work including sharpening because of the lack of AA filtering. But, I'm interested in what other folks are finding to be optimal ranges to their eye.

 

Any feedback or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

[adan]

I tend to use PhotoShop USM with a high setting and low radius - seems to treat edges and texture more equally (less edge halo for a given amount of texture boost). Base for both the M8 and M9 is 300 @ 0.3 radius (Threshold zero). Like you, I avoid sharpening in the raw development stage.

 

For prints of the size you mention I'd probably go higher (my default "small" print is 12 x 18). I read somewhere that images correctly sharpened for PRINTING should look way oversharpened at 100% - "crispy" was the term used.

 

So perhaps 0.7 radius @ 300%

 

Oddly, the higher the megapixels of the camera, the higher the sharpening needs to be, because the pixels (and thus the visible effect of the sharpening) are much smaller points in the total image for a given print size.

 

IE. if the image is 2000 x 3000 (Epson 6 Mpixels) a sharpening of .5 radius is 1/6000th of the image width, whereas in the M9, it is only 1/10,400th of the image width. You'd need nearly twice as much sharpening for a given print size from the M9 to get the same apparent "crispiness" as the Epson.

 

That's for smallish prints where the ppi is way above 300 (from M9 files). In big prints, extra sharpening is less needed (and more obvious) because the pixels are larger on the paper.

 

For 4 x 6 snaps, I sharpen at 1.0 radius(or even higher) @ 400-500% (at that size, M9 files are printing at over 900 ppi, so way more detail than a printer can reproduce)

For 7 x 10 proofs - 0.7-1.0 radius @ 300%

For 14 x 21 exhibition prints - 0.3 radius @ 300% (or less, depending on lens used)

 

YMMV

________________

 

Edit: I might add that - IMHO - inkjet printers' real resolution is about 240-260 ppi. Printing higher than than (i.e. smaller prints - 300, 500, 900 ppi image resolutions) we are throwing away detail. The rule of thumb from a decade ago was 300 ppi, but that rule was really developed for use with high-end magazine reproduction with 150-line halftone screens (2 pixels for each printing dot) and got carried over to inkjet because inkjets were used as proofing devices.

 

If I had the time and energy, I'd up- or down-res all my images to final print size @ 240 ppi, (i.e. about 1.3 Megapixels for a 4x6) and then sharpen as appropriate equally for all prints (0.3 @ 300).

 

Some will say Epson claims 300ppi from their printers in seminars and clasees and such. I stand by my experience that it ain't that high in reality.

[delander †]

I have a simple sharpening action used on the final size of the file which runs like this:

1. Apply USM 15/20/0 or similar which adds a bit of zip to an image.

2. Make a duplicate layer and apply the high pass filter to this layer. Radius 0.6 is a good starting point.

3. Set the blend mode to hard light and vary the opacity until the effect is as you would like it.

4. Flatten the image.

 

I view the image at 50% zoom to judge the sharpening.

 

As Andy commented above larger files take more sharpening and for printing the image should look just a little oversharp on screen.

 

For printing I set the image ppi to 240.

 

Jeff

[dalecook]

Greatly appreciate the feedback. I've probably been "undersharpening" my images based on the settings that were mentioned. I'll experiment some more with the posted suggestions. Again...thank you.

[adan]

Of course, things like noise at high ISOs need to be factored in when setting sharpening. I usually toss in a threshold of up to 6 above ISO 800 to keep the noise from sharpening as much as the rest of the image - but that is a picture-by-picture consideration.

 

Thos numbers above are my basic ISO 160-800 targets, but also may be varied depending on lens or image characteristics (organic objects like people vs. hard objects like architecture, etc.)

[Luuk]

Here are some average settings for output sharpening,

 

printresolution amount (PS Smart Sharpen) radius

 

260 110% 2,7

300 100% 3,0

 

Blend mode for your sharpening layer or filter in smart object = Luminosity.

 

IMHO print size is important for these settings but larger can do with less if you are "shure" that they won't poke their noses into it.

 

regards,

 

Luuk