NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Processing & Publication => Topic started by: Tristin on February 02, 2016, 02:05:03
-
I think it could be really informative to share how we all approach sharpening. What are your go to settings/guidlines? How to you adjust it? Tell us your philosophy/attitude towards sharpening, then tell us the details!
I use sharpening to make fine detail more crisp, but leave the overall sharpness to the lens itself. I used to sharpen globally, but have come to enjoy a more natural look. The way I sharpen now is not very apparent unless printed/viewed at a decent size, but downsizing 24mp's I feel adds enough edge acuity to make up for it on regular web sized images.
I do my sharpening when processing the raw, I have ACR 9. I view the image at 100% looking at an area containing fine detail and some are containing as little detail as possible while still having some texture if possible. Close up on the eye and cheek, or a my focal point and some bokeh does well. I nearly always have the Radius at .5 and Detail set ~12. I then adjust the Amount to crispen detail without going close enough to cause jaggies or even the most minimal of halos. Depending on the image, this can put the Amount at 30-90. After that, I adjust the Masking as high as possible without effecting the sharpening on the fine detail of the image to ensure I do not accentuate grain or make skin texture more apparent. It amounts to moderate sharpening on only the finest hard detail. From there I do no extra sharpening, and never use luminance noise reduction, only color.
-
Tristin,
what is the in-monitor sharpening setting of the Monitor connected to your PC? Or are you using a notebook ?
Most PC monitors these days process the video signal and apply among other things local sharpening by the monitor CPU - independent what you do with your application on your PC. I'd be careful to compare impressions between users remotely.
It's like having a good debate about the colors of a photo between 2 remote users und both have non-calibrated monitors (or printers).
Independent of the point mentioned above my sharpening workflow is super simple. Turning off all in camera shareping to reduce halo artefacts, slight sharpening in CNX when needed for monitor usage, a bit more for print usage. With regards to the monitor settings, my approach is based on minimum (but not set to zero) in the monitor. All monitors of same type are set on same settings. If somebody knows a "calibration tool" for sharpening setting, I'd appreciate any pointer.
rgds,
Andy
-
I have a 2005 model monitor, I don't think they were incorporating stuff like in monitor sharpening at that time.
-
However you consider the 'art' of sharpening, the way it ought to be done depends entirely on the intended usage of the image. Thus no setting is 'correct'. Every use or new scaling requires the process to start all over gain. Save yourself a lot of work by not sharpening anything until it is necessary for a particular application. Work from a master file (or clean RAW file).
A photo for printing can be awful to scrutinise on your monitor but print beautifully. An image appearing stunningly sharp on your monitor can print as mush.
-
In general, Bjørn wrote the response that I was thinking of.
Mostly, I process toward making an inkjet print. Depending on the size, paper, and pixel count of the finished picture, I may or may not employ sharpening.
Good question about monitor sharpening....is it present?
It is generally present on television sets, but I've never seen it mentioned for computer monitors. I don't think I'm seeing it on my NEC 27" PA-series monitor. ???
-
I have already learned much of that which I did not know! I will do some research on sharpening for print. Anyone have knowledge to impart on it?
-
I always reserve sharpening for the last process on any image, if I even apply it.
This particularly applies if the image is to undergo any re sizing, reshaping or cloning because usually they will upset any sharpening applied.
If I want to sharpen a special image I sometimes use this procedure, using layers in Photoshop, the example is a bit old but the principles can still be applied today although to be honest I haven't used it for some time.
http://www.wildsnaps.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new_page_40web%20sharping.htm
-
High-pass filtering for sharpening is old as the use of printed photographs. You can do it globally or locally, brushing in only the areas you feel require the extra bite.
-
However you consider the 'art' of sharpening, the way it ought to be done depends entirely on the intended usage of the image. Thus no setting is 'correct'. Every use or new scaling requires the process to start all over gain. Save yourself a lot of work by not sharpening anything until it is necessary for a particular application. Work from a master file (or clean RAW file).
A photo for printing can be awful to scrutinise on your monitor but print beautifully. An image appearing stunningly sharp on your monitor can print as mush.
Bjørn; usually I start my PP in Capture NX- 2/D and then might take it further to ACR/PS CC (as 16 bit TIFF).
Am I better off sharpening in PS as the last step (setting all sharpening in CNX-2/D to zero)? What about the so- called "Capture sharpening", creative sharpening and output sharpening = three step sharpening process?
-
Sharpening seem like a science of its own :) I often use a bit global (+5-10) sharpening in ACR, and if the picture is not intended for a print I find downscaling and save for web more than enough for sharpening. If its a print, I use selective high pass and smart sharpening as the last steps after setting the image size. Others might use USM but that feature has never been a part of my workflow.
-
Bjørn; usually I start my PP in Capture NX- 2/D and then might take it further to ACR/PS CC (as 16 bit TIFF).
Am I better off sharpening in PS as the last step (setting all sharpening in CNX-2/D to zero)? What about the so- called "Capture sharpening", creative sharpening and output sharpening = three step sharpening process?
Of the three steps, only the last is required. And it applies when the parameters of the output file are set for a given usage. Never in advance "just to be on the safe side".
-
This is my process in general:
In ACR I set amount in the region of 5-20 and masking very high (often 95-100%). This ensures I don't enhance noise in larger, smoother areas.
In Photoshop I use High Pass where I sometimes apply noise reduction to the high pass layer if I'm dealing with images with high iso noise.
-
Of the three steps, only the last is required. And it applies when the parameters of the output file are set for a given usage. Never in advance "just to be on the safe side".
Thanks, Bjørn, I'll give it a try!
-
Bjørn is right. Sharpening is for output.
Which brings us to the difficult question of unknown output devices.
As in: How to sharpen an image for the presentation on the internet?
-
The subject of sharpening is also relevant for the shooting-format, RAW or JPG (and the settings applied for that). And the used camera and lens. There are also a number of situations were 'de-sharpening' is required.
-
Interesting thread.
Most of us (including myself) have the (bad) tendency to sharpen our images, sometime without discernment, often systematically.
I try to moderate this habit, asking this question : '' Does this image really need to be sharpened'' ?.
I reckon this method it's fine if you want to save a valuable picture. in this case I will try to find the right balance between details an grain.
In any case, the higher are iso, the more destructive the sharpening is.
I've noticed that some settings (using View NX) like contrast or shadow protection add grain.
If anybody knows the best way to sharpen without grain. please, let me know... :)
-
John Geerts: Sharpening of RAW is a non-concept. It cannot exist by definition.
Rosko: explore the potential of layering or brushing in detail with the history brush (PS). You can protect part(s) of an image by making masks. And so on ad infinitum.
-
Thank you Bjørn. I will dig your advice with Gimp, hoping there are the same features as PS (which I haven't used yet) I am really weak in processing : I don't even know how to create layers with Gimp... ::) ;D
By the way, the example given on Seapy' link shows obvious improvement in sharpness, but the bird is over saturated to my taste. The original pastel colors are so much nicer.
-
John Geerts: Sharpening of RAW is a non-concept. It cannot exist by definition.
Yes. What I meant was when shooting in jpg there may be a sharpening in-camera.
-
Yes, with jpg you can select in-camera sharpening. This might even be a camera default setting. I suggest it be turned off immediately. In-camera sharpening can only cause issues later in the work flow.
For sharpening or any further processing of a jpg, start by making the imported file 16-bit and scale it 4X (even bigger if you need to deliver a huge print). Set the colour space to the largest your software can handle. You might add a layer copy slightly blurred and merge the two. Then work on that file as usual. When ready, downscale to the final size and do the sharpening there. Convert to the wanted output colour space and 8-bit.
-
Bjørn, what's the reason for sharpening after downscaling?
-
I rarely sharpen any of my photos - if I do - its on wildlife but even then... I forget
I dont want any more sharpness on ppl especially
(D800 & 135 f2 DC) shot at f8 with studio lights
I photographed 11 managers of a local chain store - and the images printed beautifully sharp
-
In photoshop there is the option to apply bicubic sharpening when resizing.
If you want to publish an image for web, for instance where the original size is 4900x3200
downsize in half steps not straight to 1024x800, and while doing the image will smart sharpen
and so on.
-
Whatever I do with sharpening, it always looks overdone when seen later, so lately I tend to to reduce it to 50% of my initial attempt, and then things do look better
-
Bjørn, what's the reason for sharpening after downscaling?
Because this is the final image ready for use.
-
Thanks Bjørn, wanted to make sure there wasn't a technical point I didn't see.
-
Bjorn already mentioned the technical point in an earlier post. Any geometric translation (resize, rotate, distortion correction etc. etc.) will wreak havoc if the image is already sharpened. Best to do sharpening at the latest possible moment.
-
Tristin, thanks for starting this thred for the seemingly entry-level but actually very essential topic!
-
For Bayer sensors, where the image after raw conversion is obtained by interpolation, slight capture sharpening is simply an extension of the interpolation algorithm. Depending on the Raw converter, setting all sharpening controls to zero results in an incredibly soft image, particularly for sensors which have an optical low-pass filter. I don't know what would be a neutral setting in that case.
However, sharpening to the extent that it is visible at the final size should be reserved to after down-sampling. This is for several reasons: 1) it is hard to predict how sharp the result will be when sharpening earlier, 2) the downsampling algorithm itself can be tuned to give sharper or less sharp results and therefore interferes with the manual sharpening, 3) the artifacts that arise because of the sharpening will be combined with downsampling artifacts to yield even more artifacts, 4) (related to 1) the scale (radius)at which sharpening is applied depens on the downsampling factor, which is not known beforehand, and if it is, it is still better to sharpen after.
I'm sure you can think of more reasons.
-
Thanks for the informative post.
-
I shoot with the Standard Picture Control. I rarely shoot NEF + JPG fine these days but rather NEF only. The sharpening of the Standard PC helps make a clearer LCD image for previewing. Turning off all sharpening in camera makes for a mushy image on the LCD. In post, usually CaptureNX-D these days, one of the first things I do is turn the sharpening all the way down. I do whatever I'm going to do in CNX-D or occasionally CNX2 and then pass the results on to Photoshop in a 16bit TIF. I specifically do not want this TIF sharpened.
In Photoshop I'll do additional image processing and save the TIF as a PSD file. If I do sharpening with the full sized image it will be a stamp of all visible layers that can be turn off or discarded of later. It will usually be the top or next to the top layer in the PSD.
When down sampling I create a new flat PSD file and then duplicate the background layer. This new layer will be used for sharpening. I frequently down sample in stages. I normally sharpen lightly before down sampling to retain fine details. This can be as light as 5%, 0.3 pixels, remove lens blur. I'll frequently down sample 50% at a time. If I have troublesome diagonal lines I'll down sample in smaller steps. Frequently this isn't needed. I can erase though areas of the sharping layer if they are troublesome. I can back off the opacity of the sharpened layer if I've sharpened to much, e.g. 100% down to 70%~50%. I use basic smart sharpening a lot. I sometimes use the unsharp mask and sometimes high pass sharpening. I may mix all three.
What I do not want is to sharpen the TIF I send to Photoshop and I don't want sharpening of my Photoshop PSD until very late in the PS work so I can throw it out if I need to. The final size and sharpening of an image is tailored for the specific use.
I'm still learning. Anyway that's my 2 cents on the subject.
Dave
-
Depending on the Raw converter, setting all sharpening controls to zero results in an incredibly soft image, particularly for sensors which have an optical low-pass filter. I don't know what would be a neutral setting in that case.
I think you want to increase the acutance to the level you like while keeping it subtle enough that the view is not aware it. If the viewer is aware of the sharpening then it's detracting from the appreciation of the photograph. One the flip side no sharpening will probably detract from the photograph also. I rather doubt that there is a neutral setting unless it's the middle of the scale offered by the camera or software. Certainly no sharpening in this case is not neutral as the image has been blurred by the Bayer sensors and low-pass filter.
Another 2 cents,
Dave
-
I was under the impression, and I'm not sure where I got the impression, that when down sampling in photoshop these days it is already doing down sampling in multiple steps behind the scenes, so to speak, so it is not necessary to do so manually like it was in the past.
Is this an incorrect impression?
Are you finding it makes a big difference to do it in steps?
For the past several years I've just used Lightroom to down sample straight to the needed size.
-
I'm still using Photoshop CS2 so I can't comment on latter versions.
Dave
-
Even CS2 will support the free Nik collection. The output sharpener there can be very good if you fine-tune its usage.
If you haven't tried it yet, I recommend you give it a spin. Just don't accept the preset checkbox that you are willing to allow the Nik software to 'phone home' and you'll be just fine. The plugins come in 32- and 64-bit versions and either version can be used as a standalone module.
-
Sharpening? I use a file, LOL.