sharpening

[russellsnr2]

the shot needs a lot of sharpening.

Sorry me again.
The above is an extract from another forum on a photograph i submitted.
What I need to no is what is ment by 'sharpening' within software manipulation.

Below is said photograph.

[jfrancho]

Meaning "post process" the image using an image editor to apply some form of sharpening to improve the in camera capture and processing. With your permission, I can show what I mean.

[jfrancho]

Also, for information the image is tagged as ARGB color, which isn't supported by a web browser, and tends to make the image look dull. Looks beautiful in Photoshop. To present this over the web you should use PS to Edit>Convert with sRGB IEC61966-2.1 as the destination space.

[subtle_spectre]

About 1 degree of CCW rotation would be nice, as well.

[jfrancho]

And clone out the dust spots on the sensor...jeez, we're picky.

[russellsnr2]

OK (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/member.php?u=23749)jfrancho,
Please do with as you wish but if you have the time please advise of the changes you make.
Also please confirm that the act of sharpening is applied to the whole image and not just certain parts.
Many Thanks.

[jfrancho]

OK, Workflow:
Opened
Verified color space, Edit>Convert to Profile...Canel
Save as .psd
Image>Mode>16-bits/channel
Image>Mode>Lab color
New Curves Adj. layer
Added saturation to the a* and b* channels
Added contrast via s-curve to L*
Ran TLR Capture Sharpening script: Low Res., Medium, USM, 2, 3, 2, 0, 0
Flatten Image
Image>Mode>RGB color
Crop for rotation using rulers and crop tool
Use the Clone and Patch tools to fix sensor dust
Ran TLR Output Sharpening Script: Web, 800px.
Flatten
Convert to sRGb
Mode>8-bits/channel
Save as .jpeg, quality 12

It's a little over the top, but I wanted to be dramatice to demonstrate the point. There was nothing done locally or selectively using color adjustments and sharpening tools. The clone and patch were local fixes. But for the most part all the data was there for the manipulations.

[jfrancho]

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/54635462-L.jpg

[blue_max]

It's very over-exposed. Sharpening probably makes it worse.

Graham

[Wilt]

jfranco, if you shot film I bet it would be Velvia! A bit overshapened (see water in the foreground...looks quite artificial)

[jfrancho]

Yep, in fact I used shoot slides of tropical fish. Like I said, it's over the top. The OP didn't say "fix this," he said show me some sharpening, plus there was the requirement that it be a global adjustment. Personally I'd crop out most of the water.

[jfrancho]

Like this:
http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/54637999-L.jpg

[Wilt]

http://photos.yahoo.com/wilton_j_wong@sbcglobal.net

Hope this attempt to share photo works...never did it this way before, using the location I just used...

Altered Curves, then reduced Saturation, then Unsharp mask with 150/0.3/6 with Photoshop LE (the only thing available on this computer I'm at)

[Wilt]

OK one more try then I quit trying...

http://photos.yahoo.com/wilton_j_wong@sbcglobal.net

[russellsnr2]

Firstly gents thanks for all the input on this.
Graham :- when you say over exposed do you mean in the 1st instance or after manipulation?

jfrancho:- Thank you for all the work you have put into this, looking at it to me it seems you need to become well versed in photo manipulation as well as learning the in's and out's of photography itself.

Again thanks all.

[jfrancho]

I'd say this scene is a good candidate for a blended exposure: one image exposed for the sky, another exposed for the shadow region. A very good video tutorial is available at The Lights Right Studio: Quicktime video (http://www.thelightsright.com/tutorials-video.htm). There is a ton of information available on TLR (http://www.thelightsright.com/digital-darkroom.htm), as well as some great actions and scripts.

[Wilt]

Jfranco, thanks for offer to post the photo I quickly edited with PSLE...I sent it to your email address you provided.
--wilt

[jfrancho]

Thanks Wilt, and your welcome. I'll be posting it as soon as it's uploaded. Looking now at my work at home on a calibrated display, the previous work being done on an uncalibrated display (my work laptop!), I'm amazed at just how bad it look! This really drives the point home of being sure that your display is tuned, so that you are talking apples and someone else sees apples!

[jfrancho]

This is Wilt's submission, posted by his permission. Really nice job -- I bet his display was calibrated!

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/54677896-L.jpg

[jfrancho]

Ok, I can't let that thing up stay as my only contribution. This is done at home on my image machine, saem workflow above except I ran the curves on the image in RGB mode - I think you'll agree that it is a little better! Russell, your actually getting a first hand lesson in the first crucial step in color management: calibrate your display!

Here goes:

http://plan-b.smugmug.com/photos/54680946-L.jpg

I'm still about a third stop brighter than Wilt's version, but you can see the effect of two pass global sharpening.

[Wilt]

Thanks for getting my photo posted, jfrancho. The two different 'interpretations' of the same scene is interesting to note what is same, yet what is different.
The range of mountains in the background are about the SAME density and saturation, yet my sky is lighter and the foreground trees are darker, and the low level foothills are less saturated in mine. Just shows how areas of emphasis within the frame can be altered with postprocessing the same scene in different ways! Quite different 'feel' in the two portrayals. not 'better' or 'worse', just 'different'.

[blue_max]

Firstly gents thanks for all the input on this.
Graham :- when you say over exposed do you mean in the 1st instance or after manipulation?

jfrancho:- Thank you for all the work you have put into this, looking at it to me it seems you need to become well versed in photo manipulation as well as learning the in's and out's of photography itself.

Again thanks all.

Hi Russell,

The original version you posted was only using a limited range of tones. Is this what you refer to your 1st instance, or do you have an original file that has not been touched?
There are jpg artifacts in the lake, which manipulating make worse. There is a distinct lack of detail. If you worked on this before, it could be that you saved too many times as a jpg (each time damages the image).

All speculation, but I would like to see the original capture, if that wasn't it you posted. Oh, it would be better if you changed your avatar to reflect your acceptance of edits, so we can post the results. Otherwise they can't be posted without asking permission.

Graham

[tupe]

All good advice. I can't see the fixes from here bcs of our net nanny, but I know these guys do good work.

Seems to me what this photo mainly needs is levels tweaking.

The first picture is with darkened shadows and brightened highlights only - similar to boosting the contrast.

The second is with levels plus sharpening of everything except the blue area in the foreground.

[subtle_spectre]

Ok, I was bored so decided to offer up a Velvia twist:

http://mhaindiana.org/images/Down-the-water--2 copy.jpg