What is a good way to sharpen my images?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But in the end it is totally subjective.

Yes and no. For daily use, yes ,but sharpening for print can be approached completely mathematically,as it is a matter of matching the size of the sharpening haloes to the DPI and PPI of the printer.

[pico]

[...]] Sharpening was divided into three seperate steps - remember ti was not designed for photographers! [... excellent tip snipped ...]

 

A bit of trivia - unsharp masking is a wet darkroom technique developed by photographers.

[jaapv]

Yes - and it was often used for density control. Which is interesting, because one can use USM in CS in a similar way - set to 20% and radius 50 and it will work as a local midtone contrast enhancer.

[jaapv]

Hi Jaap,

 

Don't I get automatically some level of sharpening in LR3 or PS CS5 if I don't change the default settings?

 

Thanks, K-H.

Yes, but they are one-size-fits-all.Or rather, fits nearly none...

[Dan States]

I suppose it goes back to preferences I gained in the analog era but I find sharpened images to look quite unnatural, regardless of technique. By the aesthetic standard of today most of the 35mm format images of the past 90 years would be "unacceptable".

 

For me the advantage of the digital m is the ability to make prints that look natural, not digitally "enhanced". I've seen many fine portfolios and exhibits ruined by the meaty hands of a photoshop enthusiast. It seems that the "sharp" look is the fad in this early stage of

digital capture, but I suspect it will pass in time, just like other period treatments like super high contrast and solarized prints.

 

If that leads people to view my images as "mushy", well, so be it.

[Swanny66]

Dan,

 

If you find sharpened images unnatural as you say, then they most likely have been over sharpened. That is why it is up tot he photog to use the best method for each photo to not make it look over processed. One method of sharpening does not fit all photos, as Jaap stated in his FAQ.

[Dan States]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Dan,

 

If you find sharpened images unnatural as you say, then they most likely have been over sharpened. That is why it is up tot he photog to use the best method for each photo to not make it look over processed. One method of sharpening does not fit all photos, as Jaap stated in his FAQ.

 

Could be so...I'd love to be directed to some sample images that illustrate "great sharpening"....I surely don't profess to know all and would love to be educated.

[jaapv]

Dan,

 

If you find sharpened images unnatural as you say, then they most likely have been over sharpened. That is why it is up tot he photog to use the best method for each photo to not make it look over processed. One method of sharpening does not fit all photos, as Jaap stated in his FAQ.

I would replace that by missharpened. Dan is right,sharpening the wrong way,let alone oversharpening (the wrong way too) is one of the main causes of ruined photographs.

[Swanny66]

Nor do I Dan. But there is a plethora of books, classes on sharpening, Photoshop, etc. that would be good to attend. Every image is different. It is up to the photog to determine which looks the best. We all are voicing what we have found to work for each individual photographer. Not all of it is gospel.

[roguewave]

If I just try to understand the above descriptions "copy layer to a new layer", "desaturate it"; "filter - other -high pass to 1.2 pixels" followed by "set mode of layer to overlay" all of this to me is totally unclear. I would not know how to apply all these steps, and more importantly, would not understand "why". If I would try to understand what all of this means I would no longer be in my photo hobby.

I am also convinced that if everybody on this forum would be honest, the majority would admit neither to understand what it means nor ever to apply this kind of utterly complicated post processing.

I am most likely far to dumm to understand this kind of high brow stuff, but happilly enough I use a Leica M9 that hardly needs any post processing! And again I feel that if my photos would need the above extensive pp, I should delete these and next time try to be a better photographer.

Sorry for not being able to appreciate this kind of (only for me?) really too complicated electronic photographic techniques.

 

There's never an easy road to excellence. You invested in some very costly & sophisticated gear. Don't be lazy. Here's a strong recommendation, Scott Kelby's Seven Point system. There's neve an easy road to excellence. If you don't really care about that. than just enjoy your gear as if it was a point & shoot.

[jaapv]

from DOP about their easy sharpening toolkit:

We only support Photoshop CS3/CS4

 

Which is understandable - as in CS5/ACR 6.0 everything is under sliders and can be automated with presets.

[Marquinius]

I've been following this thread with some astonishment and with lots of pleasure. I can't help thinking that shooting with an M9 makes that extra effort in post processing mandatory. And sharpening is the very important last step in the chain from digital negative to exhibited photograph (I'm leaving out that after all that, you still have to put it in a nice frame or on your website).

 

Most of us have been along the road of presets, easy solutions, quick fixes and whatnot, but in the end you realize that it all comes to sharpening your skills.

 

Jaap's suggestions are really an investment that will pay off within a couple of weeks. And there are some excellent tips on the web for sharpening in LR3.

 

To summarize: work harder to obtain excellence (or, as Ben states, if you don't want all that hassle, use the M9 as a point and shoot and be happy with it).

[pop]

If I just try to understand the above descriptions "copy layer to a new layer", "desaturate it"; "filter - other -high pass to 1.2 pixels" followed by "set mode of layer to overlay" all of this to me is totally unclear. I would not know how to apply all these steps, and more importantly, would not understand "why". If I would try to understand what all of this means I would no longer be in my photo hobby.
I am also convinced that if everybody on this forum would be honest, the majority would admit neither to understand what it means nor ever to apply this kind of utterly complicated post processing.
I am most likely far to dumm to understand this kind of high brow stuff, but happilly enough I use a Leica M9 that hardly needs any post processing! And again I feel that if my photos would need the above extensive pp, I should delete these and next time try to be a better photographer.
Sorry for not being able to appreciate this kind of (only for me?) really too complicated electronic photographic techniques.

I think you might be confusing "incomprehensible" with "complicated".

If you'll accept an analog in the way of an explanation, please consider some people talking about chess. There is ample mention of rooks, bishops, knights and even ladies where none such entities are in evidence, which make chess talk utterly incomprehensible to anyone not in the know.

However, once you learned that the term "bishop" just denotes a little piece of plastic with a certain symbol embossed, one hurdle has already been taken. The next hurdle would be the knowledge that the difference does not lie in the pieces and their symbols but in the rules which are applied to moving those pieces on the board, everything would become quite clear - in principle. True. you still would not be able to play chess, but the mystery would have been taken out of the language.

Similarly, some of the terms you labelled as "incomprehensible" are just the names of some entries as given in the menues of a particular kind of software. Hence, even if one of the lines above told you to "berghufaal" your "thorix", it would not matter a bit as long as the software offered such in its menues. I hasten to add that I have not ever seen any software offering such options.

Other than the incomprehensible terms, most concepts in electronic post processing are actually straight forward and easily grasped even by the less technically gifted.

Whether you enjoy using a computer or not in order to produce or enhance your photographs is an entirely different story. Photography has always been a technical undertaking for most people who have photography for a hobby. If you rather make prints in the stinks of a darkroom or with the aid of a computer or even have them made in your friendly copy shop is entirely up to you. All choices are equally "valid". Not every one might be equally fulfilling to you.

[Muizen]

The many to-the-point responses and advices to my thread have inspired me to give sharpening a real try. So I followed the indeed very clear explanations of Jaapv to the letter, which was less complicated than I had expected. Understanding the "why" is another matter!

I normally would apply far more sharpening than somewhere between 10 and 40, like Jaap recommends, but kept the sharpening at 35.

Also not clear to me was what exactly the purpose is of moving the detail slider (using alt)? How far to move to see what happen? I produced a fine almost invisible fine drawing of the major details in the photo and left it there.

At the end of this job I asked my wife which before/after picture in LR3 she liked the most. She selected the one without sharpening and was totally objective in her choice not knowing anything about pp.

 

I wonder whether there always is a need for sharpening?

Thank you all for your contributions and your patience!

[pgk]

The unsharp mask has been with us for a very long time. I have a print (well its actually on my mother's wall and has been for 30 years) which is a 'Valachrome' (actually a 15' x 10" Cibachrome print made from a 35mm transparency physically sandwiched with a photographically made mask to produce enhanced edge contrast - it cost £20 in 1980). It looks exactly like it is supposed to - a very sharp Cibachrome print - and not in the least unnatural.

 

FWIW I'd stress that sharpening is entirely related to the output use required of an image. I shoot a lot of stock still and here I simply bring up the very finest detail as no doubt the photo editor at the agency will make a quick examination at 100% so this is where the image should be nice and crisp. But for output to web or a particular print size I will sharpen entirely differently. Leica M digitals require substantially less fine detail sharpening than my dSLRs but similar sharpening for web use. Its all about understanding what you are trying to achieve and determining the level of sharpness which looks most acceptable to you for the use you are putting the image to. There are numerous methods of sharpening so is worth exploring several to determine which suits you best. Overdone sharpening looks bad regardless of the method used:D.

[jaapv]

The many to-the-point responses and advices to my thread have inspired me to give sharpening a real try. So I followed the indeed very clear explanations of Jaapv to the letter, which was less complicated than I had expected. Understanding the "why" is another matter!

I normally would apply far more sharpening than somewhere between 10 and 40, like Jaap recommends, but kept the sharpening at 35.

Also not clear to me was what exactly the purpose is of moving the detail slider (using alt)? How far to move to see what happen? I produced a fine almost invisible fine drawing of the major details in the photo and left it there.

At the end of this job I asked my wife which before/after picture in LR3 she liked the most. She selected the one without sharpening and was totally objective in her choice not knowing anything about pp.

 

I wonder whether there always is a need for sharpening?

Thank you all for your contributions and your patience!

\

Unfortunately,as all experts will tell you,a computer screen is about the worst device there is to judge sharpening,or indeed a photo on. However it is the only device we have when postprocessing,so the best at the same time. A photograph that is properly sharpened for print may well look horrible on your screen.The only way to judge the result of your work is to print it. Or-indeed optimize for screen viewing. But a screen JPG cannot be printed in any quality.