Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Image sharpening

Reply
Thread Tools

Image sharpening

 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit of
sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture I
process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that seems
to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people in
here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following this
procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to what
I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling Let me know what you
think:

1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
weird but don't worry!
3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an eye
on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
result.
5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.

I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome any
comments.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003

"Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bmmabh$rbt$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

of
> sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
> Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture

I
> process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

seems
> to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

in
> here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

this
> procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

what
> I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling Let me know what you
> think:
>
> 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
> 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
> list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
> weird but don't worry!
> 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
> 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
> and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

eye
> on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
> result.
> 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
>
> I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
> but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
> butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

any
> comments.
>
>


Real photographers go with what they shoot...

Doc


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bay Area Dave
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
are you referring to Photoshop Elements or Photoshop V or some other
version? I can't find the "hard light" choice in Levels in Photoshop V.

Mike wrote:

> In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit of
> sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
> Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture I
> process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that seems
> to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people in
> here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following this
> procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to what
> I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling Let me know what you
> think:
>
> 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
> 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
> list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
> weird but don't worry!
> 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
> 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
> and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an eye
> on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
> result.
> 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
>
> I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
> but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
> butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome any
> comments.
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Coon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
Take a look at UltraSharpen6 (US6) Pro or the free Lite version. IMO, it
does a *much* better job than USM alone. It's an automated process including
they types of steps you list. The $20 Pro version includes 6 sharpening
levels, a manual mode and batch processing. The free Lite version has one
level only.

http://www.ultrasharpen.com/

One thing I like about US6 is that sharpening is applied selectively. For
example blue skies or other expanses of undetailed color end up noisy/grainy
when USM is used. Not with US6.

Here's an outdated (Version 5) review using the manual mode -- a mode I
seldom use.
http://the-internet-eye.com/Reviews2...ltraSharp5Pro/


"Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bmmabh$rbt$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

of
> sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
> Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture

I
> process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

seems
> to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

in
> here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

this
> procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

what
> I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling Let me know what you
> think:
>
> 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
> 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
> list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
> weird but don't worry!
> 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
> 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
> and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

eye
> on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
> result.
> 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
>
> I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
> but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
> butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

any
> comments.
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Peirce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
In article <R7yjb.58596$(E-Mail Removed) .net>,
"Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote:

> Real photographers go with what they shoot...


That's just plain wrong. Real photographers try to get all the
information they can on the negative, slide or chip and then manipulate
it as required in the darkroom or the computer.

Ansel Adams used to say the negative was the score and the darkrooom
work was the performance of the score. It is damn near impossible to
record on film or chip what you are seeing and trying to record. All
you can do is record the information that is there and then try to
extract your vision when processing the image.

--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) [Mac]
(E-Mail Removed) [Office]

 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Coon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003

"Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message
news:R7yjb.58596$(E-Mail Removed) link.net...
SNIP

> >

>
> Real photographers go with what they shoot...
>
> Doc
>


And include the inherent blur introduced by the filters placed in front of
the CCD or CMOS sensors?




 
Reply With Quote
 
Don Forsling
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003


--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
"Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message
news:R7yjb.58596$(E-Mail Removed) link.net...
>
> Real photographers go with what they shoot...
>
> Doc
>

Well, that's a snappy line, Doc, but as you must know, it's not true now and
never has been (except in the case of rank amateurs)--not in art
photography, not in journalism, not in advertsing work, not in portrait
work. In fact, what you wrote must be a troll. Shame on me for
responding---
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Don Forsling
(E-Mail Removed)
"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"


 
Reply With Quote
 
Stanley Krute
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
Hi Robert

> Ansel Adams used to say the negative was the score and the darkrooom
> work was the performance of the score. It is damn near impossible to
> record on film or chip what you are seeing and trying to record. All
> you can do is record the information that is there and then try to
> extract your vision when processing the image.


Thanks for so succintly stating the truth as many of us see it.

Stan


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
Photoshop 7


"Bay Area Dave" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%myjb.63$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> are you referring to Photoshop Elements or Photoshop V or some other
> version? I can't find the "hard light" choice in Levels in Photoshop V.
>
> Mike wrote:
>
> > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a

bit of
> > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
> > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each

picture I
> > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

seems
> > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

in
> > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

this
> > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

what
> > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling Let me know what

you
> > think:
> >
> > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
> > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the

Filter
> > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
> > weird but don't worry!
> > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
> > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the

image
> > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

eye
> > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
> > result.
> > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
> >
> > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp

Mask,
> > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
> > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

any
> > comments.
> >
> >

>



 
Reply With Quote
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-16-2003
"Doc" <doc @ doc..net> writes:

> "Mike" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:bmmabh$rbt$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

> of
> > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some


[snip]

> Real photographers go with what they shoot...


That is pernicious nonsense. Find me even *one* example of a
first-tier photographer who doesn't use some sharpening with digital
images. They *need* it -- in fact most cameras, except for the
pro-level ones, do some arbitrary amount before writing the picture to
the cards. Pro-level, and some others, let you control that or even
turn it off completely. I turn it off completely -- so that I can
control it myself in photoshop. It's a necessary part of digital
imaging.

Besides, every great photographer that I know anything about has used
crops, dodging and burning, special processing, and every other tool
available at the time to get the results they want.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <(E-Mail Removed)>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Auto "Image Sharpening" and "Image Adjustment" with Nikon 5700 Anthony Digital Photography 3 02-24-2006 10:40 AM
D70 on-camera sharpening vs. Photoshop sharpening john Digital Photography 9 07-28-2004 09:23 AM
D70 Raw Image Sharpening - some or none Don F Digital Photography 15 06-17-2004 09:31 PM
D100 Question: Image Sharpening jeff liss Digital Photography 1 08-10-2003 03:23 AM
In-Camera Sharpening - Good or Bad? Cooter Digital Photography 5 07-16-2003 04:00 PM



Advertisments