Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 08 Jun 2004 (Tuesday) 20:31
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Post Processing #3 - Sharpening & Saving

 
Scottes
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Jun 08, 2004 20:31 |  #1

Well here's my contrasty, straightened image so far:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/5337_postcrop.jpg

So now for the final manipulation - Sharpening.

And you've probably been waiting for this one because it's such a darn mystery. And I'm not really qualified to answer this at much length, so I'm going to give you a way to save for Web and a few tips.

The big tip I can give you is to check out a PDF Tutorial from our very own gmitchel: http://www.thelightsri​ght.com …nYourSharpening​Skills.pdf (external link)
This is a great tutorial and lists some other great resources.

But for someone new to sharpening I hope the following helps a bit...


Choose Filter... Sharpen... Unsharp Mask. This is a small image that's going to the web, and I'm going to steal a formula from Scott Kelby - Amount 400%, Radius .3 pixels, Threshold 0 levels:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/5337_unsharpmask.gif

Click on OK and we get:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/5337_oversharpened.jpg

Ugh! That's way too much! With all the leaves and the small gazebo this image has a LOT of little details, and this generic formula was too much!


We have a couple ways to fix this. One would be to pay attention to the Preview button in the corner. Turn this on and off, comparing the original to the sharpened version. Play with the Percentage, but leave the Radius and Threshold as they are - these are usually pretty good settings for a small Web image. When you've got the percentage set and it looks OK, turn away for a minute or three and read some of the forum. Then come back to it and see if it *still* looks OK. Play some more, and click OK.

When I did this, I ended up with a Percantage of 250% and got this:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/5337_sharpen250.jpg

The other way to fix this is Fade the Unsharp Mask. I did the original formula at 400% and got the oversharpened image. But then I clicked on Edit... Fade Unsharp Mask and got a new dialog box:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/5337_fadeunsharp.gif

Now I can move the slider over and fade the effects of the sharpening until I am happy. I ended up choosing 58% and got this:

IMAGE: http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/5337_unsharpfade.jpg

Which one is better? Personally I like the faded one directly above. With the Unsharp 250% it sharpened everything and it looks OK. But the Fade seems to have actually softened things a little bit more, yet seems to be about as sharp. Why? The Fade also adjusted the Radius and Threshold settings, which the 250% image had just the Percentage changed. With a Radius down at .3 you don't have much room to change that, nor with a Threshold of 0. The Fade changed those slightly, too.

Of course this is subjective. You might like the other one, someone else might like neither and want to do it all over again. Sharpening is tough - there are many, many ways to do it. The Scott Kelby book lists 15 or 20 different variations - and not just with plain old Unsharp Mask, either!


So finally the image is done. Except that we have to save it properly.

First, save as TIFF in case you want to come back to it. Simply choose File... Save As... TIFF. For an image like this - with lots of detail - you don't want to use compression as the file will actually become larger. (Long story.) But if you have an image with a LOT of solid color, like a lot of blue sky, you could choose LZW compression to save some disk space. I wouldn't choose ZIP as it's not very standard and other programs might not be able to open it. (Of course PS always will, if that's all you use.)


And finally we save the image to view on the Web. First thing you want to do is convert the color space to sRGB which is generally used for Web stuff. (Actually I don't know if Macs use sRGB, but I know that Windows PCs default to this, so I use sRGB.)

Click on Image... Mode... Convert To Profile and choose sRGB IEC61966-2.1 - otherwise always known as plain old sRGB.

You may notice some color changes when you do this, particularly in the blacks and bright colors, particularly red. Fixing this is another day - actually a whole new methodology, and a bit of work. Sorry. But for now you'll be better off displaying on the web in sRGB. Otherwise I feel that the image ends up slightly duller and darker.

Now choose File... Save For Web. Over on the upper right make sure that you're set for JPEG, Optimized is checked, Progressive is unchecked, ICC Profile is checked, Blur is 0, and Matte is empty.

Now try some of the setting below the JPEG box - Low, Medium, High, etc. When you choose one check the lower left corner - you'll see something like "JPEG 51.91 K 19sec @ 28.8 Kbps." This will give you an idea of the final size of the image and how long it will take a slow dialup user to download.

When you see a file size and a time you think is approprite, double-check the image by clicking on the Optimized tab near the top. Grab the Magnifying Glass and zoom into an area with a distinct line next to a solid color, or some straight line set at an angle. JPG anomalies will be much more pronounced in these areas, and we want to avoid the anomalies. For my image I zoomed in on the gazebo - the trees and leaves will hide anomalies pretty well. Some semi-solid areas - like clouds or rippling water - will also show anomalies well.

Flip between the Original and Optimized tabs to see what the JPG compression is doing to your image. (The distortions and/or blocks of color are JPG anomalies, and they're expecially noticable at Low quality.)

Finally, when you're done click on OK.


Well, I hope you enjoyed all this. At least some of it. Maybe.


My last little "tip" for tonight:

There are many ways to do almost everything in Photoshop. Tonight I went through the simple ways to get your image prepared. Everything I did has a better way, if not 10 better ways. As you go through learning PS you will find slightly better ways to do each step. Learn Them! Do Them! If you took my starting image and did each step a little better then you will have a MUCH better image in the end.

And it will be worth it.

You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tommykjensen
Cream of the Crop
21,013 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 260
Joined Mar 2004
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark.
     
Jun 08, 2004 22:50 |  #2

Thanks for sharing, I'll read this later.


EDITING OF MY PHOTOS IS NOT ALLOWED

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
IanD
Cream of the Crop
Honorary Moderator
Avatar
5,342 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 463
Joined Dec 2003
Location: Lancaster, Ontario
     
Jun 09, 2004 17:04 |  #3

Hey Scott, how about a article on resizing? I'm sure a lot of folks (my hand is up in the air) get a little cornfused when trying to resize a full sized Tiff or Jpeg.
My prowness in PS is right up there with my ability to walk on water :lol:


Ian (®Feathers & Fur)
Have You Hugged Your Mallard Today?
More Images- (external link)My Gear
flickr

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shaun3000
Member
102 posts
Joined Oct 2003
     
Feb 08, 2005 17:07 |  #4

RE: sRGB on Macs

sRGB is the accepted colorspace for the internet. (I believe according to the W3) Mac has excellent color management built in so it shouldn't be an issue.


http://www.flamingduck​.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
Feb 08, 2005 17:23 |  #5

Yep, but the only Mac browser that supports embedded profiles is IE, and it's not enabled by default. No Windows browsers support embedded profiles, either. Since Windows will default to sRGB it's best to use sRGB for the Web - although I wonder what Macs default to?


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ProAc_Fan
Member
Avatar
141 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: Niagara Falls
     
May 09, 2005 21:32 |  #6

Click on Image... Mode... Convert To Profile and choose sRGB IEC61966-2.1 - otherwise always known as plain old sRGB.

Just curious but Scott Kelby advises using Adobe RGB 1998 as the default color setting for Photoshop editing photo's. Is that for photo's going to print only?

Mike




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
May 10, 2005 06:19 |  #7

Adobe RGB is a larger color space than sRGB, thus image manipulation with Adobe RGB will often result in less blown-out colors. sRGB is the standard for printing.

It's usually recommended to work/manipulate in Adobe RGB but then convert to sRGB for printing unless you positively know otherwise. I'm one of those who also recommends this.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
UncleDoug
Goldmember
Avatar
1,103 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: North lake Tahoe, CA
     
May 10, 2005 09:55 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #8

Scottes wrote:
Adobe RGB is a larger color space than sRGB, thus image manipulation with Adobe RGB will often result in less blown-out colors. sRGB is the standard for printing.

It's usually recommended to work/manipulate in Adobe RGB but then convert to sRGB for printing unless you positively know otherwise. I'm one of those who also recommends this.

Unless you are using a straight 4-color printer (CMYK) I'd take issue with the recommendation for switching to sRGB for printing.
The consumer inkjets of today usually run 6 colors (CMYKOG, hexachrome or other mixes) or more to extend their color space. (Light-Jets and the like are another beast) Some of these printers have color spaces with areas that will fall ouside of the sRGB space, but not with AdobeRGB or another space, such as EktaSpace or BestRGB. By switching to sRGB you will be cheating yourself of the extra colors provided by these new printers.

I could go on for hours but don't just take my word for it.

Check out Don Hutchison's site for a great explanation.

http://hutchcolor.com/​profiles.html (external link)

This guy is THE color guru.


-Uncle Doug
Canon 5D & 7D
Nikon D200 - :p
Mac and PC environment
VTour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
May 11, 2005 06:09 |  #9

In my experience every time I've printed using AdobeRGB the print has not looked so great. Converting to sRGB and re-printing has gotten me my expected results.

Now when I print to something good (like a LightJet) run by an intelligent crew (like one who specifices the print profile on their web site) then this is a different story.

But printing to my inkjet, MPix, Ritz Camera, Walmart, my "semi-pro" lab's Agfa, the Frontier at the other lab, etc - sRGB has always looked better then if I gave them AdobeRGB.

There's no doubt that many printers can handle AdobeRGB, but just that most expect sRGB and the crews running them expect sRGB so printing Adobe RGB to these printers looks like crap.


I actually thought that I had explained the phrase "unless you positively know otherwise" but I guess that I just thought it. (Perhaps it was another thread.) If you run into a company with a LightJet chances are that they know what they're doing - this can't be said about many other places with the "print lab" machines.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
UncleDoug
Goldmember
Avatar
1,103 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: North lake Tahoe, CA
     
May 11, 2005 08:32 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #10

Scottes wrote:
I actually thought that I had explained the phrase "unless you positively know otherwise" but I guess that I just thought it. (Perhaps it was another thread.) If you run into a company with a LightJet chances are that they know what they're doing - this can't be said about many other places with the "print lab" machines.

Scott,

Sorry for rattling your cage.
All your points and experiences are valid and so are mine.
I'm just trying to provide more information on a topic,especially when I feel that information is being left out or is eroeous, that is of real and great importance in the realm of digital out-put.
My business is color management and large format inkjet printing, so I'm not just blowing hot air up your skirt.
If sRGB works for you, GREAT! But I'm sure that if you communicated with your lab they would be able to accomodate just about any intermediate color space you wanted, unless they are using some of the older AGFA machines that use a bastardized/old-school way of getting digital images to print on the AGFA. Most of the "modern" commercial printers today are more that capable of handeling any working color space tagged to your files, be it KODAK, FUJI, EPSON or what ever.
All it usually takes is communication and desire on your part.

Anyway, did you check Don's website out? The info contained there is invaluable. Also, the BestRGB working space posted for download on his site is the space we convert to from scanner space. Definitely better output that from AdobeRGB. If I'm not mistakes the "logic" behind the results is a more neutral grey axis in the BestRGB space.

We also send images out to be printed, 5x7 and smaller, in this space with no problem and better results that sending them out in sRGB. All it took was me talking with someone and including my request with the order form.

The advent of digital photography and out-put has not made things easier or better, it has just provided a new set of challenges do deal with.


-Uncle Doug
Canon 5D & 7D
Nikon D200 - :p
Mac and PC environment
VTour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
May 11, 2005 10:22 as a reply to  @ UncleDoug's post |  #11

UncleDoug wrote:
But I'm sure that if you communicated with your lab...

I, too, am an old hand at CMYK printing from the days when I used to run Iris clones (Stork, from the Netherlands). Not that I do it for a living, but I certainly know enough on how to do it right.

My main issue is that so many people DON'T know how to run their printers. The last time I contacted a "pro" lab I asked about color space info and was told to send the image as a TIFF. Strange answer to this question, wouldn't you say? After talking to 2 more people I was convinced that they were clueless, and I hung up. Conversations like this were pretty consistent, but the people who could answer this simple question charge twice as much for the same print, so I kept looking.

After 3 visits to my local "semi-pro" lab I knew them well enough and they knew me. I played with their Agfa for 2 minutes and got it to use AdobeRGB and now they print AdobeRGB for me, but I still don't think they know how to do it for someone else.


In a nutshell, from my experience, if the people can't tell you the correct color space then send them sRGB. If they CAN tell you, do whatever you wish since it will be better than sRGB. It's not so much that sRGB works for me it's that AdobeRGB printed as sRGB looks like crap.


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
UncleDoug
Goldmember
Avatar
1,103 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: North lake Tahoe, CA
     
May 11, 2005 10:58 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #12

Wow, I guess I've been lucky. :D

Shopping around for print providers that can make the grade may be a hastle, but it will do photographers and the industry good.

We all had to do it for film, processing and printing, and we now need to do it for digital.

Several people I'm asscoiated with have complained that the advent of the digital darkroom has made every consumer a "expert printer". I call it growing pains - and this general concept IS being played out in the Digital Photo Lab industry as we speak.


-Uncle Doug
Canon 5D & 7D
Nikon D200 - :p
Mac and PC environment
VTour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scottes
THREAD ­ STARTER
Trigger Man - POTN Retired
Avatar
12,842 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Nov 2003
Location: A Little North Of Boston, MA, USA
     
May 11, 2005 11:25 |  #13

I kinda blame it more the other way... The advent of digital cameras has made every PRINT OPERATOR an "expert printer" but that is hardly the case. Fuji/Agfa/etc make very expensive push-a-button mini-labs that anybody can run. Argh!


One of my all-time favorite posts on the subject, just the quotes in the first post:
https://photography-on-the.net …highlight=milli​on+dollars
That slays me every time.
:-)


You can take my 100-400 L away when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
Scottes' Rum Pages - Rum Reviews And Info (external link)
Follower of Fidget - Joined the cult of HAMSTTR©

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
UncleDoug
Goldmember
Avatar
1,103 posts
Joined Sep 2004
Location: North lake Tahoe, CA
     
May 11, 2005 15:33 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #14

Scottes wrote:
I kinda blame it more the other way... The advent of digital cameras has made every PRINT OPERATOR an "expert printer" but that is hardly the case. Fuji/Agfa/etc make very expensive push-a-button mini-labs that anybody can run. Argh!


One of my all-time favorite posts on the subject, just the quotes in the first post:
https://photography-on-the.net …highlight=milli​on+dollars
That slays me every time.
:-)

Slayed me as well!

You and I are on the same page about "Experts". I think my last post was poorly writen. Maybe too much of the drum cleaner fumes today! :lol:


-Uncle Doug
Canon 5D & 7D
Nikon D200 - :p
Mac and PC environment
VTour (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chtgrubbs
Goldmember
1,675 posts
Joined Jul 2003
     
May 12, 2005 09:11 as a reply to  @ Scottes's post |  #15

A couple of years ago when I was just getting started in digital a new lab opened in town claiming to be the hot lab for digital. I went in and asked the manager a couple of questions about sizes, etc. Then I asked him about what color space and could he give me a profile to use. "Oh, just bring me a file to print and then take it home and adjust your monitor till it looks like the print and you'll be fine" he said.

So I kept looking for a real lab.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

25,023 views & 0 likes for this thread, 12 members have posted to it.
Post Processing #3 - Sharpening & Saving
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is semonsters
1059 guests, 103 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.