unsharp mask

[liveinlite]

Some of the portraits I have taken on a D10 Canon looked great on the LCD monitor, but when I went to print them, even after using unsharp mask and lightness and contrast they still appeared blurred. Any suggestions on how to sharpen the faces of these portraits?

[ssim]

Trying to determine the sharpness and color quality on a LCD screen is difficult. If this is a laptop I would suggest you get yourself a monitor.

You don't mention which lens you were using. Try posting some examples which makes it much easier to comment on.

[martcol]

Posting shots would help along with shutter speed and aperture. Blur can be a focus problem, camera shake or just due to the limitations of digital capture.

Martin

[robertwgross]

The parameters of unsharp mask are critical.

If nothing else works, then try varying the parameters.

---Bob Gross---

[Motorsports Photo]

Try my numbers

95
2
4

BTW- Most of my outdoor work is on LCD. I find that my eyes are wrong when I check the screen. The prints are nice and crisp when they come out.

-Pete

[chris.bailey]

I find some photo papers sharper than others and tend to use Olmec or Epson papers as to my eye they produce nice sharp prints with good colour rendition.

I personally dont like the effects of over-sharpening and tend to apply shapening by LAB conversion, sharpen the Lightness channel only and then re-convert to RGB. Yes the conversion looses a bit of data but it does minimise the artefacts that USM can produce.

A lot also depends on subject matter and I have spent an age printing out the same picture with different levels of USM to get a 'feel' for what I like.

In summary it is a black art and everyone will give different advice as to what is right. Like many other areas of photography though, there is no right or wrong, only shades of shaprness.

[scottbergerphoto]

I don't think there is any one formula or set of parameters that will work with USM. Portraits need different settings , then landscape and architecture. My 100-400 usually requires more sharpening then my 16-35. Sometimes I presharpen with R=30-50, Amount=10-30, T=0 on days with very low contrast before sharpening again (Local Contrast Enhancement). When you first start out, you want a formula that works for everything. Unfortunately you find that it doesn't work that way. After a while you develop a number of different sets of parameters that will work for similiar subjects and lenses.
Scott

[sparty314]

I agree that no set of parameters will work for everyone all of the time. A few weeks ago there was a very interesting thread about sharpening (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20258#114202) where Frank offered a *great* suggestion about using Layers and a high pass filter along with USM. I have found this much better than just applying straight USM to my images--thanks Frank!

[Webster]

sparty314 wrote:
I agree that no set of parameters will work for everyone all of the time. A few weeks ago there was a very interesting thread about sharpening (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20258#114202) where Frank offered a *great* suggestion about using Layers and a high pass filter along with USM. I have found this much better than just applying straight USM to my images--thanks Frank!


This is a great way to do USM. Both suggestions, in fact, are excellent. While the high pass method has the advantage of being a layer, so you can use a layer mask to selectively apply your sharpening, as well as adjusting the overall transparency; the luminance sharpening can clearly provide good sharpening where nothing else will.

[Canuck]

liveinlite wrote:
Some of the portraits I have taken on a D10 Canon...

Where did you get the D10? I have yet to see that one! Is that the new one that people are possibly talking about?

[Derek Smith]

liveinlight

You post a short question - it has a big answer.

Blur can be caused by a number of factors;

If the blur was caused by the antialias screen and the digitisation process, then a little USM should solve the problem easily and your images should be well sharp.

If the blur was caused by a soft lens, the problem is harder but should still be correctable with a little USM, perhaps resorting to the Lab lightness channel USM technique described earlier, or by buying a better lens.

If the blur was caused by a focus issue (identifiable by parts of the image being sharp but not the bits you wanted to be sharp), then fix the focus problem. There are many threads on focus issues and how best to force the 10D to focus where you want it to rather than where it thinks it should. If it is important to recover such shots, try blurring out the sharp bits to hide the fact that the shot is wrongly focused, then select important features such as eyes, mouth, jewelry, then use the selective edge sharpen techniques covered in other threads - search for 'edge sharpen'.

If the blur was caused by camera shake (none of the shot is sharp) then use a tripod. I find the 10D to be particularly vulnerable to the slightest movement. Even the old rule of thumb of using 1/300th sec. shutter is often not fast enough to handle camera or subject movement. If you have to hand hold, use a higher ISO/larger aperture combination to reduce exposure to ca 1/1000th . Unless noise (grain) or DoF are issues (or your lens misbehaves at lower f values) then do not be afraid to use the much faster speeds possible with this lovely camera. You are not limited by film anymore - experiment - there are no rules, you won't break it, and your shots are FREE. This sort of blur can be so bad as to be not worth the effort to fix it. However, if your life depends on getting a result try some of the highly complex selective masking, edge selection, compound USM techniques covered in earlier threads, or even consider cloning in key features from similar shots which were not so badly damaged.
Note: this is probably why IS/L glass is becoming the defacto standard for 10D quality results.

The short answer - find out why the shot is blurred and fix the cause. Only consider fixing the image when you can get no better out of the camera or if the shot is particularly precious.


Derek

[mwinog2777]

Derek Smith wrote:

Note: this is probably why IS/L glass is becoming the defacto standard for 10D quality results.




Derek


When did this happen? Who was on the committe that decided this? Who appointed the council that made this decision? Am I not getting quality 10D results because I do not use IS/L glass? Does the U.S. government have a Dept. of Standards that mandates such promulgations?

[robertwgross]

I have the odd notion that Derek doesn't give a damn about the U.S. government's agencies.

---Bob Gross---

[Moses]

I used to be into photography 15 years ago with a Minolta Maxxim and kind of lost interest. Last year I bought a Canon G3 and have been mostly unimpressed with most of the results. I see these "samples" of pictures taken by the G3 and 300D and 10D and after reading a lot here, I'm wondering if many (or any) of the pictures I see that are so incredible are straight from these cameras and aren't tweaked to the hilt in Photo Shop.

I would like to get back into SLR photography and am thinking about the 10D to do it, but I really don't want to have to rely on Photo Shop to process all my pictures.

Am I just dreaming?

Do these IS L lenses really live up to the hype? Does anyone have a link to an on line shop that has a good selection of them that I can read up on them?

Also, is there any good information sources for digital photography beginning to end that anyone would like to recommend?

[scottbergerphoto]

Moses wrote:
I used to be into photography 15 years ago with a Minolta Maxxim and kind of lost interest. Last year I bought a Canon G3 and have been mostly unimpressed with most of the results. I see these "samples" of pictures taken by the G3 and 300D and 10D and after reading a lot here, I'm wondering if many (or any) of the pictures I see that are so incredible are straight from these cameras and aren't tweaked to the hilt in Photo Shop.

I would like to get back into SLR photography and am thinking about the 10D to do it, but I really don't want to have to rely on Photo Shop to process all my pictures.

Am I just dreaming?

Do these IS L lenses really live up to the hype? Does anyone have a link to an on line shop that has a good selection of them that I can read up on them?

Also, is there any good information sources for digital photography beginning to end that anyone would like to recommend?
All digital images need to be processed. That processing can be done in the camera or in Photoshop or similiar applications. Pixels are square, the outlines of most subjects are not. That requires some adjustments. If you'd rather the camera did the work, buy a Point and Shoot camera, shoot JPEG and you get nice pictures. The G2 produces beautiful pictures right out of the camera. The sharpening algorithms in the camera do the work. DSLR's like the 10D and 300D are designed for people who would rather make their own decisions as to color, sharpness, levels, etc. It is disengenuous to imply that film work was/is any less work. Ansel Adams spent hours/days in his darkroom dodgeing and burning, darkening edges, etc to get pictures right. When I shoot slides or negatives, I still have to scan them in to my computer to work on them. It sounds like your looking for perfection right out of the camera. I think most of us would like to achieve that level of photographic skill. I'm still working at it.
L lenses are great lenses. It's not hype. Read the reviews at www.luminous-landscape.com.
Scott

[Moses]

Scott, my apologies if I gave you the impression that I was anything other than an inexperienced amateur at SLR photography. I never developed my own pictures from the Minolta. That was one of the reasons why I lost interest in it (having to constantly take the pictures out to be developed).

As I said, I have the "point-and-shoot," a Canon G3 and I have not seen the quality I was looking for with this camera and thought maybe the 10D might give me the ability to produce some really high quality digital pictures. It sounds like I'll need to become proficient with Photo Shop as much as using the camera.

I have version 5.5 of Photo Shop. Is this high enough to do what would be necessary to process today's pictures coming from say the 10D?

I assume programs such as Auto Eye by Auto FX and Paint Shop Pro is too low end to be really effective?

[shirbit]

I'm not sure how blurry your image actually is, but typically you can only improve an image just so much, using Photoshop. The unsharp filter is great after you'd done all your level & curve adjustments to sharpen it all up, but keep in mind that it will reduce the quality of your image if you're not careful.

[scottbergerphoto]

Moses wrote:
Scott, my apologies if I gave you the impression that I was anything other than an inexperienced amateur at SLR photography. I never developed my own pictures from the Minolta. That was one of the reasons why I lost interest in it (having to constantly take the pictures out to be developed).

As I said, I have the "point-and-shoot," a Canon G3 and I have not seen the quality I was looking for with this camera and thought maybe the 10D might give me the ability to produce some really high quality digital pictures. It sounds like I'll need to become proficient with Photo Shop as much as using the camera.

I have version 5.5 of Photo Shop. Is this high enough to do what would be necessary to process today's pictures coming from say the 10D?

I assume programs such as Auto Eye by Auto FX and Paint Shop Pro is too low end to be really effective?
The 10D does produce beautiful pictures. They just need some post processing. That's the nature of the digital beast.
I suggest Photoshop Elements 2.0. It's less then $100, provides many of the features of Photoshop, supports color management, and won't make your eyes glaze over like the full Photoshop. Many people use Paint Shop Pro and are very happy with it.
Scott

[jim monroe]

As far as the cost of Photoshop Elements II and the 10d with my 10D Photoshop Elements II was included with the purchase and this was no special deal that I was aware of.
I totally agree with Scott it is more than powerful enough for 99% of situations one might run into. It is complicated enough and has tremendous potential to help improve your digital images. Its hard for me at least to image needing anything more but if you exhaust the possibilities of Elements II you can always move on to Photoshop CS