Sharpening for Landscapes Question....

If you process a RAW file and then open it in Photoshop, are you still working with the actual RAW file itself or a copy of it? The reason I ask is I took a class on printing for fine art landscapes from a pretty big name photographer whom I won't mention, but in the lesson, I was told to sharpen to a certain extent in the RAW conversion program (LR or ACR), then bring it into PS, Resize the image, apply high pass sharpening and then apply very fine Sharpening with the Unsharp Mask with settings like (500%, Radius 0.2-0.5 depending on the image, Threshold 0). The main reason for sharpening in LR or ACR was to apply "deconvolution sharpening". By applying sharpening at this stage it's supposed to unlock some details that you just can't with the file in PS. If you're still working with the RAW file in PS could you just sharpen there and use no sharpening in LR or ACR to achieve the same effect? I find the sharpening in LR or ACR produces artifacts for me that are just frustrating. The settings you're supposed to use with this method in LR or ACR for sharpening are also very fine (Amount 35-55% Radius 0.5, Detail 100 Masking 0). I've also been playing with Capture One Pro lately and whatever algorythim they're using for sharpening is just fantastic! My files from start to finish just have a much cleaner look with that program for whatever reason, but the catalog sucks and they currently have an issue with the output TIF files I won't get into, so I'm sticking with LR.

ohh its too much confusing! It would be better if you share the screen shot here. Anyway why dont you just use Photoshop for this!

It supposedly allows for an extra 10% of detail by using the sharpening in LR or ACR before bringing it into photoshop. Capture sharpening if you will, but if you're still actually editing the RAW in Photoshop, I don't know if this is true. I'm always really splitting hairs with landscape processing

It makes sense to me. Others more knowledgeable can feel free to chime in and correct me. I haven't bothered with the two step process from LR to PS as described. The logic seems to follow, though. RAW images contain more detail than when it is sent to PS for additional editing. I think RAW contains more detail than TIFF. That's why it's always recommended to do as much processing initially with the RAW file as reasonably possible before sending it to PS for additional editing. For example, I'd probably be able to better control tonality in the channels with Curves adjustments in LR than to do the same in PS. That's just my feeling, though, and I could have it wrong.

Yea, it is supposed to be the way to go. I've see some workflows with 3-5 places of different sharpening for one reason or another, but the basics would be 'raw', 'ouput' with output depending on size and intended purpose (Print, web etc..), and after resampling if you do that for web or printing.

Personally it seems to me that ACR either applies some sharpening by default that you can't change or the demosaicing has some kind of sharpening because I find the 'raw' outputs a little sharper than some other raw converters.

In any case, I have found I prefer not to apply any sharpening in ACR before going to LR.

I did mess around with this as one point, but decided it was not worth it to me. If you are working with layers and never touch the original, then you can change the 'raw' sharpening, but if you blend, clone or do something else it can wreck it. I ended up with some messes where I had to start again from scratch. and so decided it was not worth it.

If you are going to sharpen out of raw and before any adjustments I would make it very mild.

If you want you images to look their best on the web, then output size based sharpening is a good thing to do - it definitely makes a difference. Personally I don't bother for posting to flickr or forums, but I would if I were trying to sell prints.

Good luck. Sharpening is a whole art in itself. I'm sure there are books devoted to just this topic.

Gotcha, it makes sense, I just find the sharpening in LR or ACR to produce a lot of artifacts. The images without sharpening even have a little bit, but if I open them up in Capture One Pro, they have no artifacts. Clearly something with Adobe's RAW processing.

Just to be clear you never actually work on the raw file but a copy of it.

Technically, I don't think you even work on a copy of it. You work "from" the RAW file, making a series of adjustments recorded as bits and data to be applied before creating a copy of it with the applied changes.

Nathan wrote in post #17681112
Technically, I don't think you even work on a copy of it. You work "from" the RAW file, making a series of adjustments recorded as bits and data to be applied before creating a copy of it with the applied changes.

Perhaps virtual copy would be a better description.

Right........ an .XMP file that applies changes to the RAW file

Only if you generate .XMP sidecar files. I don't typically create sidecars, but rather let Lightroom manage and store the changes in the catalogue.

It's been so long... if you create changes in ACR, you can't save the sidecar changes, right? You must output as TIFF or JPEG or something else?

You can do an XMP sidecar with LR too......just have to check a box. I back them up that way with the XMP file so if I ever need it back, all of the edits are there

I know. I just keep them in the catalogue as default. Very, very rarely do I need to port the edits somewhere else.

I, of course, know far less than your "pretty big name photographer", but his method is not too far off what I have been doing for years for landscapes that I print larger than the 13x19 that I can print at home - IOW those that I send to a lab; 20x30 or 25x40 . In LR I sharpen around 50/0.5/85/30. Local sharpening as needed. Then I send a tiff to PS and resize to 300 ppi at the needed print size followed by low radius High Pass sharpening and finally save it out as a jpg. Or, alternatively, export from LR a resized and output sharpened tiff and then add more sharpening if needed in PS.

About LR Detail Panel sharpening: On the Detail slider 0 is all USM and 100 is all deconvolution. 50 is half and half. I have found that while deconvolution is great for detail, it is easy to get artifacts if you push too hard and backing off to 80 - 90 helps that. Also, in shadow areas which may have been underexposed and therefore may tend to be noisy when you raise them (love ya' Canon), deconvolution is going to boost noise together with detail, so I will often reduce the amount of sharpening there with the brush. Also, I always use some Masking, at least 25, to protect skies.

If you want to leave the deconvolution sharpening until you get into PS itself, Smart Sharpen is deconvolution sharpening or there are some good deconvolution plugins like Focus Magic.

gotcha, I'll try tweaking the masking and Detail sliders a bit and see how it reacts.......I feel ya with the Canon files, but I can't afford to switch really and I do love my Canon lenses