Over Sharpening? How much is too much?

Having spent a long time striving to achieve the sharp pictures I often see frequent this site I am starting to wonder how sharp is too sharp? Is that even a thing?

I understand that too much sharpening will create harsh lines around things which shouldn't be there. But perhaps I am not able to tell if I have gone too far.

I am pleased with how sharp these are:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/thesancho/10053​523826/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/thesancho/97572​96303/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/thesancho/10230​219084/

In Lightroom I typically go fairly light with the input sharpening, 40 maybe. I look at the 100% view and if it's nice and sharp I'm happy.

Now another concern is "output sharpening". To me, that's different, it's less a matter of how fine detail shows up and more a matter of the overall "look and feel" of the image, issues of contrast and clarity more than "sharpening"...

But, that's just me, other opinions may vary!

My own method is "enough and no more". What's enough though, that's the difficult bit!

Printing needs more sharpening than images intended for the web. But even when printing, I tend to judge by eye on the screen image.

Yeah, I suppose like anything it's just 'practice'. None of those shots abovelook over ssharpened then?

The larger size they are printed then the less it matters? Or the more likely you are to see the problems associated with over sharpening?

The pics you posted don't seem "over-sharpened" to me...do you see problems with them?

No, just some comments I had the other day, specifically on number 2.

I was quite pleased with how 2 turned out

#2 and #3 seem perfect to me, in #1 I see a trace of halo in the edge of the face profile, but I'm aware that it may be accentuated by lighting. Anyway, I'd keep sharpness slightly lower on #1.

all 3 images seem well lit. I have noticed that over sharpening really rears its ugly head when the image is underexposed, slightly noisy and maybe shot with a higher than usual ISO. If they were not exposed as well, I would say the sharpening would be more obvious.

Relative to the job of sharpening, these look good to me, no crunchies.
As to whether the subject matter needs that much sharpening, that more subjective. They still look good to my in that regard also.

The "Masking" slider is your friend. Hold down Shift-Alt while you adjust it to see what it does. The farther right, the more sharpness is concentrated on line detail versus noise or small detail in solid colors. Especially do this if you've pulled up the exposure or shadows.

I don't think these are over sharpened either. There's a fine line but you appear to have a great handle on it.

Portraits are more flattering when they are a little soft. That said those photos aren't necessarily too sharp.
However #1 appears to have a problem with the motion blur, the sharpening may well have had a negative effect on that.

bsmotril wrote in post #16396984
The "Masking" slider is your friend. Hold down Shift-Alt while you adjust it to see what it does. The farther right, the more sharpness is concentrated on line detail versus noise or small detail in solid colors. Especially do this if you've pulled up the exposure or shadows.

Thank you for this. Never knew about it.