Question aqbout sharpness.

[Malaxos1]

I went out today and got my first prints back from my DRebel. Anway some of the photos are clearly over sharpened or not sharp enough. The thing is that this was never an issue withmy old E10. One photo in particular looked great when veiwed at normal resolution (100%) and over sharp in a smaller size, well a 4x6 looks over sharp just like the smaller image on my monitor looked. I probably have to work on my USM techniques. Will it look better if I did an 8x10? What are the techniques that you use? Please help, I am sure glad I got some time before my next wedding, hopefully I will have all of this worked out by then...Dean

[Belmondo]

When you're sharpening on the computer, view the file at 100% while doing it (i.e. one image pixel for each screen pixel). That way, you're not likely to over sharpen. If you're looking at a 6mp image squeezed onto an average monitor, you're not seeing very much of the image detail. At 100%, you don't see the whole image, but you can see what's being done to it.

Tom

[elm54]

Hiya First a disclaimer...
I am not an expert, But this is how I do it.
First I do all my editing
ie: color profileing, color balancing , Cropping, resizing of the original Image before Sharpening, Got that? I mean resizing to Size and Resolution for print.( ie 8x10 266-300dpi ) before using USM. Then I start usually around 120..8,0. While viewing at 100%. And go on from there either up or down on % or radius. judging how it appears. Looking for artifacting or other distortions around the edges of the different objects or people in the image.
All this depends on how much work I want to do to an image or how much work it needs. Sometimes I will hit an image more than once with USM . Also I think other folks around here do different things with different imags ie: I think CDS uses a process of something like 500%, .2 , 0 not really sure... But I guess you will have to play around . Some folks really oversharpen and it is obvious and some get it reall nice. Me I just keep trying.
I Hope something here was of use to you.
Eric

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,. I'm being quoted :D

For USM I ""season to taste" with settings of;

Percentage 150-500% (usually around 200-250%)
Radius: Between 0.2 - 0.6 (most often at 0.5 or 0.6)
Threshold: 0

As you lower the radius you will tend to boost percentage.

[openspace]

In Photoshop, I tend to view my image at "print size" (versus "actual pixels" or "fit on screen") when I do my sharpening. Personally, I find that when I sharpen when viewing actual pixels, I tend to oversharpen.

Sometimes when I've been working a while with an image, I'll apply USM, step away for a few minutes and then come back with fresh eyes to analyze the effect.

You also mentioned going out and getting your first prints back, which I assume means you a lab do the prints. That's fine. Nothing wrong there. However, I can't overestimate the importance of printing test shots on a home printer if you have the resources - any decent ink jet will do. Over or under sharpening always shows up better in print.

For that very reason, I invested a few bucks in a 50-pack of cheap 3rd party 4x6 photo paper to run test shots. They don't last long, and I don't run them on a high end printer. But they are perfect for checking sharpness.

[Mark Kemp]

According to the 'blurb' about a lot of 'pro' sharpening tools - like Nik Sharpener, the required amount of sharpening varies depending upon the intended print size. I think that they mean that you sharpen more or less for larger or smaller final prints.

I wouldn't know, I usually print the same size from the same camera and so have worked out what suits me and nearly always use the same settings.

So its just hearsay, I have no proof, but it may be usefull information to someone.

[PacAce]

Mark Kemp wrote:
According to the 'blurb' about a lot of 'pro' sharpening tools - like Nik Sharpener, the required amount of sharpening varies depending upon the intended print size. I think that they mean that you sharpen more or less for larger or smaller final prints.

I wouldn't know, I usually print the same size from the same camera and so have worked out what suits me and nearly always use the same settings.

So its just hearsay, I have no proof, but it may be usefull information to someone.

I totally concur with Mark. In my case, I have a few USM actions set up on PS for the different image resolutions I work with. I have one for 800x600 screen size (web) images, another for 4x6 print size images and a third for the full resolution images. I also have these actions set up with 2 USM steps. For example, for the screen USM action, I'll use USM=(80%, .8, 0) and USM=(50%, .5, 0). For some images, this is OK but for others, it's too much so I just back off the last USM.

For image resolutions other than those mentioned above, I just set the USM manually.

[John_T]

Ok, what I understand from the original question is that this is about printing. If the print software does not scale up or down properly you will get shifts of colour and sharpness. Pixels poping up and out where they shouldn't.

In this case you are using an outside photo lab who maybe aren't experienced with digital or are using peculiar software. When they scale down they are getting these shifts or are in a sense condensing down, since the original size looks right. I think you should take your prints back to the lab and have a little chat with them, and maybe consider another lab.

[Malaxos1]

Did you creat these actions or get them somewhere, like Fred Miranda?

[PacAce]

Malaxos1 wrote:
Did you creat these actions or get them somewhere, like Fred Miranda?

If you're referring to my actions, I created them using the Action panel in PS 7. It's nothing as sophisticated as Fred Miranda's but it gets the job done for me. All it is is a "recording" of USM sequences that is saved as a Action.

[Canuck]

Hi!
This brings up a question! When shooting RAW, the in- camera sharpening and the rest don't matter, it is just what the sensor sees, right??? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

When you season to taste post taking the pic in digital darkroom that is another bit all of its own. Just wondering.

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[defordphoto]

Correctamundo there Canuck.

[Canuck]

Ok, cool, then why do you get all the sharpness and contrast info when shooting RAW in the Canon Software if it doesn't matter? Having learned the difference between RAW and JPEG shooting, I much rather season to taste on computer, than in-camera. I agree the Canon software leaves a lot to be desired, but it is all I have for now other than the few variations of Adobe Photoshop and some other stuff. I am really wondering about Capture One software and the like. Man that is an awful lot of money for a program. I know this sounds odd coming from me. IMHO, lenses seem to be where most of my money is going, but I also realise you need to have just an arse kicking digital darkroom to get the last little bit out of these pics. Any suggestions???

Cheers from England,
Canuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

When shooting raw,. The parameter settings in camera are recorded with the RAW image,.. but they are not applied. The same is true of White Balance.

Think of it this way,. an Architect may draft drawings of a new building,. and on these drawings he may specifiy colors and materials etc. But none of these specs are applied untill the building is built.

The raw file has the raw CMOS data and the camera's/users specified parameters. But they are not applied to the raw data. The RAW file is not an Image yet,. it is the blueprint. The settings and parameters are only aplied to the converted image that the RAW utility outputs.

The adjustments built into the RAW conversion utility you use can over ride any of the cameras parameters within the utility before they are applied to the output image.

Continuing with my goofy analogy,. when working in your RAW utility you are the contruction forman who is handed the plans. It is uo to you whether you are going to build the image "as drawn" or as Forman if you will overide the architects plans because you know better.

:D