Control Your Sharpening Halos

Then there are the benefits of multi-pass sharpening - Capture, Creative and Output.

Real World Image Sharpening, by Bruce Fraser, goes into this in detail.
http://www.amazon.com …oks&qid=1250529​472&sr=8-2

Here's a much shorter, free article about a 3-pass sharpening system by Fraser:
http://www.creativepro​.com …-on-a-sharpening-workflow

Scottes wrote in post #8474461
Sensors have 2x as many green photosites than blue or green. The results from 2 green photosites, 1 red, and 1 blue one are merged - blurred, in a sense - to provide a single RGB pixel. 4 photosites blended/averaged/anti-aliased to form a single pixel.

To counter-act that blurring, you need to sharpen. Well, you should sharpen.

If a photosite captured an RGB value then you probably wouldn't need to sharpen.


I can't explain it any better, let alone more briefly, than the second post in this thread on another site (though there probably are better explanations with pretty pictures).
http://www.reduser.net​/forum/showthread.php?​t=29325

To me, thats indicative of the over-technical and over-mechanical direction that photography, especially amongst amateurs and consumers, is headed. It's sad. Since when it is so overly important to have the worlds sharpest image? There are a million things more important to making a great image (lets not confuse oof with "lack" of sharpness either). Like I said, I barely sharpen, and if you were to look at my work, would you know this? Probably not, because in reality, how many people's eyes are that keen?

Do what makes you happy, of course, but I think theres way too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of photography these days, especially around here. Galen Rowell said that engineers and scientists make the worst photographers because all they do is think analytically about photography, like theres some problem to be solved.

I let Lightroom do a capture sharpen upon import and that's about it anymore. I assume my lab sharpens based on print size but I don't bother. It's faster for me to just upload the full resolution and frame it/crop it using their ROES ordering software. I gave up on the resizing to LxW @ 300PPI then sharpen. Takes too long and nobody can tell the difference, let alone cares. Also wastes space on my hard drives.

gregpphoto wrote in post #8474500
Since when it is so overly important to have the worlds sharpest image?

It has nothing at all to do with having the world's sharpest image. Geez.


It has everything to do with knowing your equipment - it's strong points AND weak points. Knowing your equipment will help get you a better image - whether it's the sharpest or not.

gregpphoto wrote in post #8474500
To me, thats indicative of the over-technical and over-mechanical direction that photography, especially amongst amateurs and consumers, is headed. It's sad.

What, you think Ansel Adams didn't know his equipment inside and out? And his developing chemicals and tools? Is this where photography is headed, or where it's always been?

bump! great thread!

I think you misunderstand the issue. Between the anti-aliasing filter and the Bayer design, the camera system intentionally reduces potential image sharpness by a systematic method that permits retrieval of that sharpness loss through USM and other methods.

This is like intentionally overexposing a high-contrast scene and then failing to reduce development to compensate. It would make no sense to overexpose and then fail to compensate saying, "there are a million things more important to making a great image than having printable negative density."

Canon recommends a quite high level of sharpening to compensate for the high level of intentional blurring their imaging process entails.

Scottes wrote in post #8474409
Hardly. Bayer Filter.

Anti Aliassing filter. Otherwise, you'd get stuff like this:
(scroll down)

Link

Scottes wrote in post #8474520
It has nothing at all to do with having the world's sharpest image. Geez.


It has everything to do with knowing your equipment - it's strong points AND weak points. Knowing your equipment will help get you a better image - whether it's the sharpest or not.

What, you think Ansel Adams didn't know his equipment inside and out? And his developing chemicals and tools? Is this where photography is headed, or where it's always been?

Yes, keep the eyes rolling, thats helpful.

I didn't say not to know your equipment. I just feel its more important to actually make artistic and meaningful photos, regardless of technicalities, than to be like the majority of photographers I see on here who worry to no end how sharp their images are but who can't make an interesting composition to save their lives.

I know my 20D and my lenses like a southern baptist knows the bible, but unlike said photographers, I do not let the mechanics hinder me. So what if im lacking .02 grains of sharpness.

gregpphoto wrote in post #8474700
I didn't say not to know your equipment. I just feel its more important to actually make artistic and meaningful photos, regardless of technicalities...

I think it's important to know technique and technical. That will actually lead to better artistic and meaningful photos, because knowing your equipment fully will lead to better artistic and meaningful photos.

gregpphoto wrote in post #8474700
I know my 20D and my lenses like a southern baptist knows the bible, but unlike said photographers, I do not let the mechanics hinder me. So what if im lacking .02 grains of sharpness.

I don't let the mechanics hinder me either. I find them to be about as simple as a shutter button. At one point I did not, but I do now. Ignore them, and they will hinder you. Learn them, and they will actually help you.

There are several reasons why ALL digital photos need sharpening.

Scottes is right about the interpolation in the Bayer pattern or other patterns for CCDs/CMOS. Foveon does not do do that.

There is also the softening from the anti-alias filter to avoid moire and other artifacts.

In addition, there is the simple conversion of continuous tones into discrete pixels.

Some cameras do in-camera sharpening, and if you are not aware what is going on, you might conclude that digital photos need very little sharpening. Inexpensive cameras might not even let you turn it off. But, if you can, you will notice that RAW files from almost al digital cameras are visibly soft to the eye.

My eBook/video has a whole chapter on why we need to sharpen. Scottes is definitely right. Nearly all photographs need it AND they need more than a little (unless you want a soft focus effect).

http://www.thelightsri​ght.com/SharpeningYour​PhotographsED

As to High Pass, you hve less control than you do with USM. Consider, you have just one setting. Radius. To control amount, you have to choose from Soft Light, Overlay, or Hard Light blends. That's nowhere near as granular as the USM Amount setting. (Yes, you can reduce it with Opacity, but you can do that with USM, too -- and it is not the same thing as adjusting Amount).

What people tend to like about High Pass is the the same thing that can also be a problem. It boosts contrast and saturation. With some photos, that's an additional benefit. But it can also result in unwanted color shifts.

You need to keep in mind how High Pass sharpening works. It is not and was never intended to be a sharpening filter. It was designed to turn continuous tone images (photographs) into line art and to create bitmap files.

You obtain sharpening as an artifact of what the High Pass filter does, which is mask edges/contours by turning everything else midtone gray. Soft Light, Overlay, and Hard Light ignore midtone gray completely. So, the combination builds contrast and saturation along edges and contours.

I'm not aware of any commercial tools that use High Pass as their general sharpening method.

The Clarity slider in ACR and Lightroom uses High Pass with a very high Radius and limits the effect to the middle tones. My own TLR Clarity Enhancement actin does the same thing, using Blend If sliders to restrict where the High Pass sharpenig is applied.

http://www.thelightsri​ght.com/TLRClarityEnha​ncement

Cheers,

Mitch

gregpphoto wrote in post #8474500
Since when it is so overly important to have the worlds sharpest image? There are a million things more important to making a great image (lets not confuse oof with "lack" of sharpness either). Like I said, I barely sharpen, and if you were to look at my work, would you know this? Probably not, because in reality, how many people's eyes are that keen?

Do what makes you happy, of course, but I think theres way too much emphasis on the mechanical aspects of photography these days, especially around here. Galen Rowell said that engineers and scientists make the worst photographers because all they do is think analytically about photography, like theres some problem to be solved.

It has always been critical to have sharp images. Most subjects demand it. Most images are blemished without it.

There are photographs that benefit from a softer focus. That's what diffusion effects and soft focus effects are for.

No one needs to buy a soft focus lens anymore or attach a soft focus filter to their cameras or worse (from my early days in photography) smear vaseline on a filter or use a nylon stocking held over a filter with a rubber band.

All of that can be done and done more realistically and with more artistic control with digital photography software.

It appears that you have not seen a RAW file from a DSLR. They are not just slightly soft. They are very soft. Do you know how many threads new users start, asking if their digital SLR is broken because every photo is soft and appears to be out of focus?! It's a very common question, and it's a reasonable question because digital photgraphs are very soft until they are sharpened (either in the camera or in post-processing).

This sort of rant about how most photographers cannot compose, cannot this, cannot that is inaccurate, insulting, and really very tiresome. I've seen it here. I've seen it on DPReview. It just initiates a flame war, because it is insulting to digital photographers.

You're coming into a forum with a great deal of collective experience both with film and with digital photography. There are many photographers here, professional and avid amatuers and semi-pros, and they deserve more respect than this sort of comment affords them.

(What I read in your comments is that you think you're a great photographer. Better than most. Better than the digital photography you see. Then just say that and let it go. At best, people will laugh at the chutzpah. At worst, they'll ignore you or abuse you.)

You really want to compare photographic prowess?! You'll be pitting yourself against competition that's pretty broad and deep here.

The Galen Rowell quote doesn't apply at all, IMO. I have mastered the techniques of B&W color/film photography and digital photography, and I do not treat photography like an engineering problem to be solved. Just read my blogs, my essays on sites like Luminous Landscape. I've written a lot about creative vision, previsualization, etc.

Proficient artists master their techniques AND their materials. There is a certain foundation of technical knowledge needed to have the widest range of artistic choices for digital photography.

It is the technical and its mastery that extends our ability to reproduce our creative vision in a photograph.

Photography has always been a blending of technical and artistic. From the earliest days and the chemistry involved to todays digital photography.

Cheers,

Mitch

I suspect that the reason agencies say "don't sharpen" is that they think that jpgs are already sharpened in the camera. I would always apply some sharpening to a RAW conversion.
And, I see no reason to usually sharpen everything in most images:
Selection for sharpening illustration.

Well, it would certainly seem counterproductive to buy an expensive wide-aperture lens to blur the background and then sharpen it the noise in it.

gregpphoto wrote in post #8474700
... So what if im lacking .02 grains of sharpness.

Er, this IS a thread about using software to sharpen images, with some great tips how to do it well.

There's not much logic in posting in it to say you shouldn't... as everyone else posting here will be on topic, ie: discussing sharpening via software.

I'd like to ask that we stay on topic.

Me I'm a huge fan of edge masks for sharpening, but I also use high pass a lot.
High pass also works with an edge mask Since I've already created the mask for my USM sharpening and Noise reduction, I often experiment with high pass at that point..

And don't forget your USM Radius 50 (that's five oh, not .05! ) ...for localized contrast!

gmitchel850 wrote in post #8475116
It has always been critical to have sharp images. Most subjects demand it. Most images are blemished without it.

There are photographs that benefit from a softer focus. That's what diffusion effects and soft focus effects are for.

No one needs to buy a soft focus lens anymore or attach a soft focus filter to their cameras or worse (from my early days in photography) smear vaseline on a filter or use a nylon stocking held over a filter with a rubber band.

All of that can be done and done more realistically and with more artistic control with digital photography software.

It appears that you have not seen a RAW file from a DSLR. They are not just slightly soft. They are very soft. Do you know how many threads new users start, asking if their digital SLR is broken because every photo is soft and appears to be out of focus?! It's a very common question, and it's a reasonable question because digital photgraphs are very soft until they are sharpened (either in the camera or in post-processing).

This sort of rant about how most photographers cannot compose, cannot this, cannot that is inaccurate, insulting, and really very tiresome. I've seen it here. I've seen it on DPReview. It just initiates a flame war, because it is insulting to digital photographers.

You're coming into a forum with a great deal of collective experience both with film and with digital photography. There are many photographers here, professional and avid amatuers and semi-pros, and they deserve more respect than this sort of comment affords them.

(What I read in your comments is that you think you're a great photographer. Better than most. Better than the digital photography you see. Then just say that and let it go. At best, people will laugh at the chutzpah. At worst, they'll ignore you or abuse you.)

You really want to compare photographic prowess?! You'll be pitting yourself against competition that's pretty broad and deep here.

The Galen Rowell quote doesn't apply at all, IMO. I have mastered the techniques of B&W color/film photography and digital photography, and I do not treat photography like an engineering problem to be solved. Just read my blogs, my essays on sites like Luminous Landscape. I've written a lot about creative vision, previsualization, etc.

Proficient artists master their techniques AND their materials. There is a certain foundation of technical knowledge needed to have the widest range of artistic choices for digital photography.

It is the technical and its mastery that extends our ability to reproduce our creative vision in a photograph.

Photography has always been a blending of technical and artistic. From the earliest days and the chemistry involved to todays digital photography.

Cheers,

Mitch

In no way Im a proponent of doing away with technology and the mechanics or not mastering them, and if you carefully, carefully read what I said, you'll see that. Rather, don't fret the day away with "Oh no, is this sharp? How's my white balance, is it beyond perfection??!?? Is this good!?!?" Art is about style, and anything thats too perfect will lack it. Everything needs a little slop. Style and substance will always be more important than technique, always.

Well I guess I'm just better then the rest, because my straight-out-of-camera RAW files are generally pretty sharp. I go from the standard setting of 25 sharpness to 40, and maybe I'll high pass eyes or faces.

Remember what photography means. To paint with light. And you cannot be a painter if you're mind is trapped in the world of a chemist or a mathematician. You're artists, act like it.


PROWESS?!??! Where?? All the magical sunset photos, the senior portraits, the shots of the dog and the baby playing in the grass, all that is prowess? Without sounding mean, I'll say that 95% of the photos I see on make me wonder why the creator is wasting their time in this field. Give me a break, for real. And FYI, how many people have been published and paid for it, other then John Doe's Local Blog/Mag/Newspaper?

You write: "What I read in your comments is that you think you're a great photographer. Better than most. Better than the digital photography you see. Then just say that and let it go. At best, people will laugh at the chutzpah. At worst, they'll ignore you or abuse you."

Ok, I'll say it with pride. I am better then most, you're damn right. In no way am I the best, in no way is my learning experience over (only when I'm dead), in no way am I trying to insult anyone. But where do you fall in, with your *amazing* dead center composed shots of flowers? Is that the prowess you speak of?

I like how you call yourself a digital photographer. Thats like me saying "I'm a manual driver" or "I'm a stick driver." So what? At the end of the day, who cares what you use or how you use it as long as you get where you want to go.

So keep complaining and researching and tweaking and become the technical master of the universe. No matter. Most people will still remain where they are. I don't know whose it was but I saw someones sig and it read "even with all this gear, I still suck" or something to that effect. Right on.

Wow. Time for me to stop with the no-doz pills Apologies in advance to anyone who is offended by this post, that is surely not the intent of it, just one photographer expressing himself. If anyone feels like doing the same, go for it I'm game.