UKC

Inspired by this thread; http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=605532

Here's how I've been sharpening

Open raw file in PShop, Zoom to 100%

Do raw adjustments (I wont go into detail, not the point of the thread.)

In the raw sharpening view, set radius to the absolute min (0.5 )

Holding down "alt" set the mask to bring out the features I want, also adjust "amount" holding down "alt"

Detail (again holding "alt") can be adjusted but I rarely bother.

When happy, open image, do final adjustments using layers.

Merge visible layers

Duplicate layer,

Sharpen duplicate using "smart sharpen"

Add black layer mask to duplicate

Use gradient tool to reveal the bits of the image I want to have the extra sharpness

Merge again.

This is the sort of outcome I am getting, I'm not unhappy with it;

http://www.fatbeetle.com/galleries/tommo/slides/kosi1.jpg



OK, this seems to work fine for me, but I'm sure others out there will have better ideas, or be throwing their hands up in despair at the madness of my method.

Enlighten me please!

In reply to stroppygob:

Hi Stroppygob. Wow - that seems a faff! How do you find time to do anything else !!!
I like your image but it is certainly very very sharpened. Whereas the sky looks fine the bottom is a little too oversharpened for my liking. All personal preference tho, so here's my much simpler workflow using Lightroom (do you use Lightroom ?)

Open raw in Lightroom.
Reduce radius to minimum
Don't view at 100%
Adjust detail up so it looks about right (using the localised zoom tool)
Apply mask so sky etc is not sharpened.
Export to jpeg (on laptop at home).
Review at work on bigger monitor - review - repeat as necessary
Most of the time this works fine. I don't view at 100% as I work on a laptop at home, but have a big monitor at work to
really see what it looks like. I find that the compressed jpeg often gives disappointing results compared to how I'd expect the raw to turn out which I can only assume is a result of the compression process. (Viewing raw at 100% does not give the same result as the jpeg at 100%).

If I do need to sharpen more I'd apply a mask then sharpen that too (with less controls available).

Other option if you need sharper images - I know it's obvious but get a better camera ? My old compact required too much post processing, so I upgraded. Sharpening is less of an issue now I find. I don't know what you're using.

Here's a recent one of mine where I concentrated on sharpening... https://www.flickr.com/photos/8255363@N05/15270829564/in/photostream/lightb... I used a different workflow involving SilverEfexPro in the middle but again sharpened at the end.

Always good to hear someone else's workflow especially if it simplifies life !

In reply to stroppygob:
Try Hi-pass sharpening. Easy and it works a treat especially for prints.

1. Pres Ctl + J to duplicate the image
2. Go to Filter-Other-High Pass
3. Adjust slider until you can just see the image.
4. Set from Normal to Hard Light (in adjustment layers). You should now see the sharpened image.
If not satisfied with the sharpening then go back to to stage 3. and adjust the slider again.

In reply to alanbill99:
Cheers mates, sound advice and a lovely image too!

In reply to Sean Kelly:
Hi there
Just tried this, it seems to work really well and I can do it in Elements which is a bonus. My normal method is Unsharp Mask with tweaking using the three controls but your method is a useful option. Thanks.

In reply to stroppygob:

If you want to get geeky you could try sharpening on the luminance channel only, in the LAB colour space. You can get away with more sharpening, but it doesn't look as processed as some of the methods in RGB space.

http://photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/advanced-photoshop-tuto...

Whilst your there, in LAB, check out the velvia effect you can get. You can make it quite subtle and not as garish as simply pushing up the clarity and vibrance.

http://pshero.com/photoshop-tutorials/photo-effects/the-velvia-effect

Or you could try sharpening on just one colour channel in RGB, green perhaps, if it is a landscape.

I would suggest making a photoshop action for these techniques or you'll be there all day. Tweaking in various colour spaces is a good distraction, but you can end up loosing site of the goal if you delve too deeply.

In reply to dread-i:

Very interesting, I'll look into that.

In reply to stroppygob:

I don't like the sharpening in camera raw or lightroom. I find it difficult to control whether i'm sharpening detail or noise. For those with better sensors than me this may not be an issue. I prefer unsharp mask in photoshop as you can set the threshold level. The radius i use depends on how much detail is in the image and what i want to bring out. Sometimes i find that no sharpening is the way and that detail can be brought out with subtle use of the tone curves.

In reply to Jimbo C:

Interesting isn't, how just this one, abet important, aspect of photography has so many different methods and adherents.

In reply to stroppygob:
Blimey you lot seem to be spending far to much time on sharpening!

I go for the path of least resistance in LR to maintain sanity.

Lightroom works on the basis of three easy stages:

1- Global Input sharpening on the RAW file (I do this automatically on Input using a Preset, varies by camera)
2- Localised/global sharpening according to taste and shot by shot
3- Output sharpening depending on Context & Taste - e.g, size of print, size of JPG, glossy/matt paper, screen-use-only

If I do anything at Step 2 (not that common TBH) - it's usually pretty quick

Too many people incorrectly combine 1&3

This seems to be a nice article:

http://laurashoe.com/2011/08/21/sharpening-in-lightroom-part-one-overview-a...

This is the benchmark book - how it should be done in LR/PS/Camera-RAW and why:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom-ebook/d...

(He's done later books which I'm sure refine and cover the same ground).

In reply to stroppygob:

>


To me, that's over sharpened: the way the foreground foliage looks - too much halo effect for my taste.

In reply to ChrisJD:


This is something most people miss. The amount (and perhaps style) of sharpening should depend critically on how you intend to display the end result (projection, web, print, glossy, matt, big, small...). There is no 'right amount' independent of the final output, so you should treat sharpening as part of the 'prepare for for display' section of the workflow.

In reply to stroppygob:

I just use the 'Sharpen' tool.

In reply to Marek:
Yep, nailed it, except that I'd say there may be some mileage in sharpening the OOC image (Capture sharpening) I suspect that may depend on the camera though, rumours have circulated for years now that some cameras play noise/sharpening games with the raw files before you get hold of them.

I use the FocalBlade plugin, it has masses of sharpening functionality, but normally only if I'm printing.

In reply to JDal:


Capture Sharpening = same as Input Sharpening (1st) stage in LR workflow.

In reply to ChrisJD:
Sorry Chris, I was replying to Mareks comment " you should treat sharpening as part of the 'prepare for for display' section of the workflow." which I took to mean that that's the only sharpening needed. On re-reading yours and Mareks post I was probably wrong.

For that stage I actually sharpen 16 bit tifs in Photoshop, do you know for sure if LR actually sharpens BEFORE it's internally done it's RAW conversion?

In reply to JDal:

LR is optimized to do capture sharpening and noise reduction on RAW files. Its non -destructive, so nothing 'actually' happens to till you export.

It does build a 'preview' of the image that is viewed on the screen. These are stored as program preview files separate to the catalog.

In the LR workflow/ethic - there is no need to be producing 16 bit Tiff from the RAW to work on. Kind of misses the point of LR.

In reply to ChrisJD:




Yes, I knew all of that. It's not what I asked. And I certainly don't agree with your last point unless, of course, all you use is LR. PS does things that LR doesn't do and they are best done in 16 bit processing. I just wondered if, internally, it did it's sharpening on the Bayer matrix, or do sharpening and maybe some other functions, happen after it's internally converted the data into RGB pixels. Just idle conjecture really.

In reply to JDal:

As far as I know (and having read the Schewe/Fraser book), LR/PS-Camera-RAW do capture sharpening and noise reduction as part of the demosaicing processing pipeline of the RAW file to output file, i.e. all in the best order to optimise baseline image quality as part of Capture Sharpening (which has its own goals, separate from creative sharpening (which can be done in both LR and/or PS) and output sharpening (which can be done in both LR and/or PS)).

With LR-5, there are plenty of tools to manage sharpening (input-creative-output) without having to go to PS or intermediate 16 bit files.

Why would you 'hard bake' the approach to noise and sharpening so early in the process via a 16 bit TIFF, when you could refine and tweak/optimise iteratively throughout the process as you go along in LR, before the final output to TIFF, JPG or Print.

I used to use LR & PS when LR was quite a new product (been using LR since V1 beta), but as it has evolved, find very little need to go to PS (now only use it to Warp pano stitches).

Also used to use Qimage for printing, but again found no need once LR matured.

In reply to keith-ratcliffe:

Important to remember that this is a good method for an image that is slightly soft and that as others have already noted, it all depends on the output. I nearly always go back to my original raw image when preparing an image for commercial purposes whether that be web or print (both commercial or inkjet as they are both different.)
In response to ChrisJD and his book recommendations, Jeff Schewe works at 'Layers' along with Scott Kelby and what they know about sharpening would fill many books! See http://layersmagazine.com/category/photoshop

In reply to ChrisJD:


That's why I used it as an example. It looked good, but I knew there was something not quite right about it, thanks for clarifying.

In reply to stroppygob:
Another good resource:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm


I like this bit of advice right at the end:

"Don't get too caught up with scrutinizing all the fine detail. Better photos (and more fun) can usually be achieved if this time is spent elsewhere."

In reply to ChrisJD:

Thanks mate.