Have I oversharpened this photo?

[tommykjensen]

Here's my favorite Harris Hawk photo, the first one original only resized to 800 x 534 (using FM plugin)

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=HarrisHawkSharpeningTest1.jpg

Next I have applied IntelliSharpen level 3 (FM plugin)
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=HarrisHawkSharpeningTest2.jpg

[Sonex305]

I think it looks great! :D

Craig

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nope!

Looks great!

[tommykjensen]

Thanks. Do You think it needs other adjustments?

I keep returning to this photo because it still amazes me that it was shot in sportsmode and thereby in jpg which a lot of people look at with horror (couldn't think of a better word).

[G3]

About the only thing about this photo that sort of bothers me a little (and it's not a real big thing) is the dark area of the background. The background is nicely blurred out, but I think it would look better if the entire background were uniformly the color and texture of the lighter part.

[darrenb]

Tommy

I have been messing with USM and recently the FM Intellisharpen (as I'd seen it mentioned it in one of Scottes previous posts).

I have to say that there are times when you can oversharpen quite easily and you are never fully pleased with the original image always thinking it could be better.

My own personal opinion is that you had a terrific original - why mess with it. (If it's not broken... don't try to fix it) Keep up the excellent work

Darren

[tommykjensen]

About the only thing about this photo that sort of bothers me a little (and it's not a real big thing) is the dark area of the background. The background is nicely blurred out, but I think it would look better if the entire background were uniformly the color and texture of the lighter part.

I see what You mean, the black area kind of draw a diagonal line across the photo.

[tommykjensen]

Tommy

My own personal opinion is that you had a terrific original - why mess with it. (If it's not broken... don't try to fix it) Keep up the excellent work

Darren

Thanks. I also agree that if it ain't broken don't fix it :wink:

But I am doing it to learn how to both improve great photos but also to improve not so great photos. I have a lot to learn about PS, not that I want to overdo it. The photos should still look like a real photo and not one that has been manipulated so it looks unatural.

Last week I got a print of this photo untouched and on print it looks stunning (20x30 cm).

[G3]

Yeah, it didn't really look to me like the original needed any sharperning.

[Bruce Hamilton]

Very nice... :)

[LazyPhotographer]

Nope, not over-sharpened. Feathers do get freaky looking when sharpened too much - and your pic doesn't have that. :)

[Scottes]

I think it looks a *touch* oversharpened, but I say that *only* because of the cheek - the rest looks great.

Better would have been FM 2.5 if there was such a thing. Or 3 with Opacity Tweak checked and then muted a bit. Or I might have gone with 3 and then grabbed the History Brush with Hardness 0, Flow 50% and barely kissed the cheek with it.

FM can easily oversharpen a web-sized image - I sometimes use 3, almost never 4. I kinda wish it had finer settings, so I will often check the opacity tweak to set it back. But it really depends on the image - fine details like feathers and such don't halo very much, and it's easy to oversharpen without noticing. Then you look at it later and shudder. Don't ask me how I know this.

Halos really show up on subjects with a fine edge (like a building) set against a solid background color. This can really be a problem when the *rest* of the image needs heavier sharpening. Then you either undersharpen the whole image, or go to 400% zoom with the stamp or history tools and erase the halo. Don't ask me how I know this, either.


When in doubt, undersharpen.