Confusion on Sharpening

[Randy Stephens]

I have been following with interest the, I think, the recently terminated thread on detail elsewhere in this forum, but admit I didn't understand the majority of the info provided in the thread. Most was way over my head. After it's ending there still wasn't any conclusion as to the best user friendly software for this advanced method of sharpening. I currently use the Nik Sharpening software but really liked some of the photo enhancements shown in the previous mentioned thread. I would sure like to hear in laymen's terms if any of the 2 or 3 software packages, like the Topaz Focus, are worth the effort to use in my daily workflow. Any opinions would sure be appreciated as I followed the above mentioned thread for a long time and came out of it with nothing.

[Doug Brown]

I closed the previous thread because the tone of the thread was getting unnecessarily ugly. Differences of opinion are always welcome on BPN as long as the dialog remains civilized. Because several contributors to the thread didn't play by the rules, I opted to lock the thread before things got completely out of hand.

Now on to Randy's question. I've never found the need to look beyond Photoshop's USM or smart sharpen. Both algorithms do a good job and don't cost any additional money. I typically start with sharp frames and use USM to enhance; rarely do I attempt to salvage a frame that isn't sharp to begin with.

[Marina Scarr]

Post processing is not my forte, but all I have ever used is Photoshop Smart Sharpen for the web and unsharp mask for printing.

[Tom Graham]

I'm a simple old man with simple tastes. I use only what is in Photoshop, mostly the USM.
But then again, I have no claim to photographic excellence/awards that others here have.
Asking about which sharpening technique to use seems to be like asking which fishing lure/fly to use for trout

Tom

[Dan Brown]

Check out Tim Grey's methods. I don't know if they are THE BEST way but they seem to yield good results using ACR presharpening and USM and he is easy to understand. Another approach is to do presharpening in a proprietary software program such as DPP (Canon) or Capture NX2 (Nikon), then on to PS for sharpening of your choice, depending on what camp you decide to go with regarding sharpening the master file or the derivatives. Start with the sharpest captures you can and GOOD LUCK!

[Steve Kaluski]

I agree with Doug here Randy, plus with PS CC there are even further refined options.

[Randy Stephens]

Thanks for the info! Seeing some of the images in the mentioned thread made me think my methods were inferior.

[arash_hazeghi]

Hi Randy,

Like Doug, Marina and others I also use smart sharpen in Photoshop, you don't really need to spend money on anything else. if it is for web I usually use radius 0.5 pixel strength 50-100, if it's for print I use radius 1.5 strength 150-200 (applied to the output file).

best

[Enrique Patino]

I closed the previous thread because the tone of the thread was getting unnecessarily ugly. Differences of opinion are always welcome on BPN as long as the dialog remains civilized. Because several contributors to the thread didn't play by the rules, I opted to lock the thread before things got completely out of hand.

I see that the pane this was answering to disappeared. To avoid this from happening repeatedly, I suggest you have a talk with "the perpetrators". There usually is a "common denominator"


As for the question here, I also have been using "Tim Grey's" approach -don't know if it his is really. But I am not opposed to trying different things that may work better for certain images. I do post in BPN here and there, but my main interest is printing. And what Roger described seemed interesting to me and worth trying to learn how to use. Heck, 3 years ago I did not what layers were... I am trying to avoid the cookie-cutter approach to image taking, processing and printing... will see how it goes...

[Don Lacy]

Randy, Tonight or tomorrow I will post my sharpening workflow with a few tips and observations. I am still intrigued by some of the points brought up in the other thread and what I have also discovered online but not sure if I will adopt any new methods as of now. I also wanted to say you really do not need to be an expert to form your on conclusions if you have a computer and imaging software you can test out the different methods and let your own eyes tell you what you see.

[Daniel Cadieux]

I also have a very simple workflow that stays within PS and LR. I leave default sharpening on in LR during raw conversion, then in PS I use USM or Smart Sharpen 99% of the time. For my taste I just use a radius of 1.3 and the amount varies between 40 to 120 depending on the file's IQ, amount cropped, and lens used (e.g. I find that images taken with the 500mm f/4 generally need less sharpening than say the 100-400). Threshold always at 0. I just use the "50%" preview pane to judge the outcome and I've liked the result. I never sharpen the master file except for that default in LR.

You can ask 20 people what they do and you'll get 20 different answers, but it's always fun to see the different methods used and experiment with them

[BobbyPerkins]

Tim Grey does have some good pointers with sharpening (Smart Sharpen), as he does with pretty much all things Photoshop. For the Remove option I use Lens Blur instead of the Gaussian Blur option (What USM uses). I always use the 100% preview pane in Smart Sharpen to adjust to taste, around about the same settings Arash stated here. I also find it usually better to leave the More Accurate option unchecked. With the Advanced Tab you can also adjust the sharpening for highlights or shadows, for example toning down sharpening in shadows where color noise may be present but I very seldom ever find the need for the Avamced options.


Tom I'd debate with you on the best lure/fly for trout but in another forum I guess,

[Diane Miller]

In regard to Randy's post that opened this thread, I’m in the same boat regarding the contentious thread that was closed. What information it contained was lost in ugly personal disputes.

Thanks to a much older thread on the same topic being revived a few days ago with a new (and contentious) comment (now deleted), I discovered a much clearer presentation of Roger Clarke's methods than was apparent from the closed thread. While he is using methods that are more complex than some people here want to be bothered with, that hardly makes it scientific gobbledygook.

It is disappointing that some people confuse educators who speak to a general audience with experts, and confuse their generalizations to that audience with absolute truth, but I would like to hear a little more from the real experts about this “scientific mumbo-jumbo” (as it was called in the deleted comment). It seems to have wide acceptance and use in astrophotography. It appears I'll have to go elsewhere to learn more.

I wonder if the advent of digital photography technology was regarded with similar disdain when it first began to appear? It seems to serve even Luddites well now.

[Hazel Grant]

Just found this chain...missed the deleted one. Sorry some had chosen to be obviously rude. That spoils it for everyone.

Yes, Daniel, You can ask 20 people what they do and you'll get 20 different answers, but it's always fun to see the different methods used and experiment with them. that's the good of this forum and site. Reading all the different views has expanded my knowledge so much. Thanks to all who appropriately express themselves to teach others. Rude ones....find somewhere else to expound and stop spoiling it for people like me.