Digital workflow - need some help please

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Flackett, Aug 10, 2005.

  1. Hi all,

    I'm new here and relatively new to serious digital photography (ie SLR
    shooting RAW) and would be grateful for some advice.

    I've just started to use RawShooter Essentials as my RAW image
    processing software. It came out top in a review of such software in the
    UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' (it is also free to download!). One
    of the things the reviewer liked about it were the sharpening
    facilities. However this has confused me greatly. I have always been led
    to believe that sharpening should be done as the very last step of your
    workflow and be specific to the size of the output (ie. any subsequent
    resizing should be performed on the unsharpened master and then
    re-sharpening done for that size). So under what circumstances would you
    want to sharpen at the RAW stage?

    Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow bird
    photographer here in the UK. Here's a link to his website:

    http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/

    Steve's lo-res images are stunning in their quality, ie. he doesn't seem
    to have lost much by downsizing from his 8MP RAW captures to <100k
    JPEG's. I have the same camera as Steve and a similar lens but my JPEG's
    don't look anywhere near as good. Any tips? My workflow goes from RAW to
    TIFF to JPEG. In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
    25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
    JPEG. Am I missing something?

    Many thanks.

    --
    Paul Flackett
     
    Paul Flackett, Aug 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:09:25 +0100, Paul Flackett
    <> wrote:

    >Hi all,
    >
    >I'm new here and relatively new to serious digital photography (ie SLR
    >shooting RAW) and would be grateful for some advice.
    >
    >I've just started to use RawShooter Essentials as my RAW image
    >processing software. It came out top in a review of such software in the
    >UK magazine 'Amateur Photographer' (it is also free to download!). One
    >of the things the reviewer liked about it were the sharpening
    >facilities. However this has confused me greatly. I have always been led
    >to believe that sharpening should be done as the very last step of your
    >workflow and be specific to the size of the output (ie. any subsequent
    >resizing should be performed on the unsharpened master and then
    >re-sharpening done for that size). So under what circumstances would you
    >want to sharpen at the RAW stage?
    >
    >Also I'm a great admirer of a guy called Steve Round, a fellow bird
    >photographer here in the UK. Here's a link to his website:
    >
    >http://stevenround-birdphotography.com/
    >
    >Steve's lo-res images are stunning in their quality, ie. he doesn't seem
    >to have lost much by downsizing from his 8MP RAW captures to <100k
    >JPEG's. I have the same camera as Steve and a similar lens but my JPEG's
    >don't look anywhere near as good. Any tips? My workflow goes from RAW to
    >TIFF to JPEG. In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
    >25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
    >JPEG. Am I missing something?


    How are you downsizing when your reduce? Are you using "bicubic"?


    ********************************************************

    "A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

    _Introductions to History of the Reformation_
    Jonathan Swift
    1667-1745
     
    John A. Stovall, Aug 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Flackett

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Flackett <> wrote:

    > In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
    > 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
    > JPEG. Am I missing something?


    Sharpen after you convert to jpeg. Trust me.

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Paul Flackett

    JD Guest

    Not so according to the pros: it's proper to sharpen your RAW in RSE, AND to
    sharpen the TIFF/JPG again in Photoshop as the sharpening algorithm is
    different.

    It remains true that it should be done last, in both cases.

    Jean.

    "CFB" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    ...
    > In article <>,
    > Paul Flackett <> wrote:
    >
    >> In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
    >> 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
    >> JPEG. Am I missing something?

    >
    > Sharpen after you convert to jpeg. Trust me.
    >
    > --
    >
    > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    JD, Aug 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Paul Flackett

    Mike Warren Guest

    JD wrote:
    > Not so according to the pros: it's proper to sharpen your RAW in RSE,
    > AND to sharpen the TIFF/JPG again in Photoshop as the sharpening
    > algorithm is different.
    >
    > It remains true that it should be done last, in both cases.


    That's what I do; a small amount of sharpening to compensate for
    the anti-aliasing filter during RAW conversion and final sharpening
    at the output stage.

    -Mike
     
    Mike Warren, Aug 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Paul Flackett

    CFB Guest

    In article <42faec00$0$22315$>,
    "JD" <> wrote:

    > Not so according to the pros: it's proper to sharpen your RAW in RSE, AND to
    > sharpen the TIFF/JPG again in Photoshop as the sharpening algorithm is
    > different.
    >
    > It remains true that it should be done last, in both cases.


    I was talking about jpegs for web sites. I agree what you said above.

    And who are the "pro's" and why are you doing what they are?

    >
    > Jean.
    >
    > "CFB" <> a écrit dans le message de news:
    > ...
    > > In article <>,
    > > Paul Flackett <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> In PhotoShop I crop the TIFF and then reduce to 50% or
    > >> 25%, make any level adjustments and finally sharpen before saving as a
    > >> JPEG. Am I missing something?

    > >
    > > Sharpen after you convert to jpeg. Trust me.
    > >
    > > --
    > >
    > > http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/


    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Paul Flackett

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Paul Flackett writes ...
    >
    >I have always been led to believe that sharpening should
    >be done as the very last step of your workflow and be
    >specific to the size of the output ...


    Generally true, but ...

    >So under what circumstances would you
    >want to sharpen at the RAW stage?


    Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass sharpening
    workflow with digital cameras (as opposed to film scans). The first
    light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the anti-aliasing
    filter blur and is done when you first open the image, then after all
    the editing work and resizing is done you'd sharpen to taste for the
    final output size (as you already know how to do). For example, Canon
    recommends amt 300% radius 0.3 and threshold 0 as a first pass USM run
    for their 1D and 1Ds series bodies. The exact numbers will depend on
    your camera model and to some extent the image data, which is why I
    turn off the default sharpening on my RAW converters.

    So basically the default sharpening in programs like RSE and Capture
    One do this first step for you, though to my tastes RSE uses overly
    agressive default settings and I have it disabled, preferring to just
    run an action in Photoshop to clean up the AA filter blur.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Paul Flackett

    JD Guest

    > And who are the "pro's" and why are you doing what they are?

    I don't recall any names (never been good with names!) but I've read it in
    various serious publications and on some photographers' sites.

    Actually, read Bill Hilton's post in this thread, I think he's got it right.

    Jean.
     
    JD, Aug 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Paul Flackett

    CFB Guest

    In article <42fb6007$0$22293$>,
    "JD" <> wrote:

    > > And who are the "pro's" and why are you doing what they are?

    >
    > I don't recall any names (never been good with names!) but I've read it in
    > various serious publications and on some photographers' sites.
    >
    > Actually, read Bill Hilton's post in this thread, I think he's got it right.
    >
    > Jean.


    I think you missed the point.

    When do you turn a "pro"? And what are "serious publications"? I ask
    these things because it highlights your logical fallacies.

    Ad Hominem
    Appeal to Authority
    Appeal to Popularity

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    I am not saying you are wrong. Just that you are not making your point
    effectively.

    And if you do what the pro's do you will be doing what the pro's do.

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Paul Flackett

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:

    > > Paul Flackett writes ...
    > >
    > >I have always been led to believe that sharpening should
    > >be done as the very last step of your workflow and be
    > >specific to the size of the output ...

    >
    > Generally true, but ...
    >
    > >So under what circumstances would you
    > >want to sharpen at the RAW stage?

    >
    > Most of the digital gurus


    Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)

    > are recommending a two pass sharpening
    > workflow with digital cameras (as opposed to film scans). The first
    > light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the anti-aliasing
    > filter blur and is done when you first open the image,


    Opening the images changes it? Can someone help me out here?

    > then after all
    > the editing work and resizing is done you'd sharpen to taste for the
    > final output size (as you already know how to do). For example, Canon
    > recommends amt 300% radius 0.3 and threshold 0 as a first pass USM run
    > for their 1D and 1Ds series bodies. The exact numbers will depend on
    > your camera model and to some extent the image data, which is why I
    > turn off the default sharpening on my RAW converters.
    >
    > So basically the default sharpening in programs like RSE and Capture
    > One do this first step for you, though to my tastes RSE uses overly
    > agressive default settings and I have it disabled, preferring to just
    > run an action in Photoshop to clean up the AA filter blur.
    >
    > Bill


    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    CFB, Aug 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Paul Flackett

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> Bill wrote ...
    >>
    >> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
    >> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...


    >CFB replies ...
    >
    >Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)


    Bruce Fraser is one, co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
    and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
    Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
    author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.

    Westfall gave the specific recommendation for pre-sharpening with Canon
    Pro bodies (300%, 0.3 radius, 0 threshold) in this PDF (it's about a MB
    so will take a while to download but it's worth it if you have a Canon
    Pro camera ... he discusses the USM settings in two places) ...
    http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

    Fraser has a web article out describing the two pass sharpening
    workflow at
    http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html?origin=story ... to
    quote a bit ... "Several years ago, I started playing with the notion
    of doing two separate sharpening passes. The first, pre-sharpening pass
    aims simply to restore the sharpness lost when turning the image into
    pixels, whether by scanning or direct digital capture. The second pass
    is then tailored to the particular printing process that will be used."

    You can read Deke's thoughts (which are similar) in his book(s) or
    videos if still not convinced.

    >> The first light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the
    >> anti-aliasing filter blur and is done when you first open the image,


    >Opening the images changes it?


    Uh, no ... shooting the image thru an anti-alias filter blurs it a bit
    so the first USM pass is aimed at restoring the sharpness lost from the
    filter. "Opening the images" has nothing to do with it. Then later on
    in the workflow, after all the digital edits and resizing are done, you
    sharpen more aggressively for the final output size.

    >Can someone help me out here?


    We're trying, but judging from your attacks on Roger Clark and your
    inability to grasp fairly simple concepts like two pass sharpening it
    appears to be a losing battle.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Flackett

    JD Guest

    > I think you missed the point.
    >
    > When do you turn a "pro"? And what are "serious publications"? I ask
    > these things because it highlights your logical fallacies.
    >
    > Ad Hominem
    > Appeal to Authority
    > Appeal to Popularity


    Let's leave it there CFB. I'm trying to help someone, not to enter into a
    useless debate. Go and pick a fight with someone else.

    Cheers.

    Jean.
     
    JD, Aug 11, 2005
    #12
  13. In message <>, Bill
    Hilton <> writes
    >>> Bill wrote ...
    >>>
    >>> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
    >>> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...

    >
    >>CFB replies ...
    >>
    >>Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)

    >
    >Bruce Fraser is one, co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
    >and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
    >Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
    >author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.
    >

    <snip>

    Hey, you guys are seriously helpful. Thankyou all very much. I shall
    read all these articles and have a play, although that's all I seem to
    do just lately :) I'll report back on my progress.

    Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
    overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger
    yet but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be
    via a slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are
    however 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
    may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting
    point being 'flat look'.

    Regards,

    --
    Paul Flackett
     
    Paul Flackett, Aug 11, 2005
    #13
  14. Paul Flackett

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:49:14 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Paul Flackett
    <> wrote:


    >Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
    >overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger
    >yet but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be
    >via a slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are
    >however 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
    >may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting
    >point being 'flat look'.


    You have to be cognizant that a zero setting in any of the sliders in RSE
    does not necessarily mean no alteration using the algorithm in question.
    IE, sharpening set to zero, does not mean no sharpening is applied.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf, Aug 11, 2005
    #14
  15. Paul Flackett

    JD Guest

    > Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
    > overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger yet
    > but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be via a
    > slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are however
    > 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you may be
    > referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting point
    > being 'flat look'.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > --
    > Paul Flackett
    >


    Zero sharpening means default (minimum) sharpening. If you want no
    sharpening at all, you must move the slider all the way to the left.

    There is a help file (if my memory serves me right, I think you can download
    it from the RSE site). I found it pretty clear and well worth reading.

    Jean.
     
    JD, Aug 11, 2005
    #15
  16. Paul Flackett

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Paul Flackett writes ...
    >
    >You mention the overly-aggressive default settings in RSE.
    >I haven't used it in anger yet but the sharpening in my version
    >(2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be via a slider and totally
    >under user control, ie. no default ?


    Click the green button on top left of menu bar and then click
    'processing parameters' to bring up a group of pre-sets that are
    applied in addition to the slider in the task bar you mention. As Ed
    and JD mention, even at zero there's some sharpening going on so you
    need to set this to -50 to minimize it.

    >'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
    >may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default
    >starting point being 'flat look'.


    These are color tonal curves.

    >you guys are seriously helpful. Thankyou all very much. I shall
    >read all these articles and have a play


    Glad to help.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Aug 12, 2005
    #16
  17. Paul Flackett

    Padme Guest

    In article <42fbbd03$0$1207$>,
    "JD" <> wrote:

    > > I think you missed the point.
    > >
    > > When do you turn a "pro"? And what are "serious publications"? I ask
    > > these things because it highlights your logical fallacies.
    > >
    > > Ad Hominem
    > > Appeal to Authority
    > > Appeal to Popularity

    >
    > Let's leave it there CFB. I'm trying to help someone, not to enter into a
    > useless debate. Go and pick a fight with someone else.
    >
    > Cheers.
    >
    > Jean.


    He was trying to help someone too.

    --

    http://www.4truths.com/
     
    Padme, Aug 12, 2005
    #17
  18. Paul Flackett

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:

    > >> Bill wrote ...
    > >>
    > >> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
    > >> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...

    >
    > >CFB replies ...
    > >
    > >Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)

    >
    > Bruce Fraser is one,


    Hey! Look up there! There goes the point!

    > co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
    > and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
    > Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
    > author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.
    >
    > Westfall gave the specific recommendation for pre-sharpening with Canon
    > Pro bodies (300%, 0.3 radius, 0 threshold) in this PDF (it's about a MB
    > so will take a while to download but it's worth it if you have a Canon
    > Pro camera ... he discusses the USM settings in two places) ...
    > http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf
    >
    > Fraser has a web article out describing the two pass sharpening
    > workflow at
    > http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html?origin=story ... to
    > quote a bit ... "Several years ago, I started playing with the notion
    > of doing two separate sharpening passes. The first, pre-sharpening pass
    > aims simply to restore the sharpness lost when turning the image into
    > pixels, whether by scanning or direct digital capture. The second pass
    > is then tailored to the particular printing process that will be used."
    >
    > You can read Deke's thoughts (which are similar) in his book(s) or
    > videos if still not convinced.
    >
    > >> The first light pass is to restore the sharpness lost with the
    > >> anti-aliasing filter blur and is done when you first open the image,

    >
    > >Opening the images changes it?

    >
    > Uh, no ... shooting the image thru an anti-alias filter blurs it a bit
    > so the first USM pass is aimed at restoring the sharpness lost from the
    > filter. "Opening the images" has nothing to do with it. Then later on
    > in the workflow, after all the digital edits and resizing are done, you
    > sharpen more aggressively for the final output size.


    Dude, I knew that. I was asking the OP to explain. But thanks for
    explaining it to him.

    >
    > >Can someone help me out here?

    >
    > We're trying, but judging from your attacks on Roger Clark and your
    > inability to grasp fairly simple concepts like two pass sharpening


    http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/attack.htm
    http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/posthoc.htm

    (This is not an attack. If you read the link you might understand what I
    have been talking about. These guys might be, and probably are, very
    knowledgable, but what you write in support of them is poor.)

    > it
    > appears to be a losing battle.
    >
    > Bill


    Maybe you guys should read something more then photography books. I
    understand most digital techniques but you don't know what is good until
    you do it. And if you treat someone as a guru and attempt to copy you
    will never do anything new. See? Wait, maybe I'M a guru?

    Anyway, if digital is so great why do you have to do sharpening after
    you take the picture? :^P

    And ease up man, I'm not attacking, i'm lovin'.

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    CFB, Aug 12, 2005
    #18
  19. Paul Flackett

    CFB Guest

    In article <>,
    Paul Flackett <> wrote:

    > In message <>, Bill
    > Hilton <> writes
    > >>> Bill wrote ...
    > >>>
    > >>> Most of the digital gurus are recommending a two pass
    > >>> sharpening workflow with digital cameras ...

    > >
    > >>CFB replies ...
    > >>
    > >>Who are these digital "guru's". (Appeal to popularity)

    > >
    > >Bruce Fraser is one, co-author of such books as "Real World Photoshop"
    > >and "Real World Color Management". Chuck Westfall is another, Sr.
    > >Technical Marketing Manager for Canon USA. Deke McClelland is a third,
    > >author of "Photoshop Bible" and popular Photoshop training videos.
    > >

    > <snip>
    >
    > Hey, you guys are seriously helpful. Thankyou all very much. I shall
    > read all these articles and have a play, although that's all I seem to
    > do just lately :) I'll report back on my progress.
    >
    > Could you just clarify one thing for me Bill. You mention the
    > overly-aggressive default settings in RSE. I haven't used it in anger
    > yet but the sharpening in my version (2005 1.1.3 build 15) seems to be
    > via a slider and totally under user control, ie. no default ? There are
    > however 7 'Appearance' starting points (eg. outdoor normal) which you
    > may be referring to, but again these are optional, the default starting
    > point being 'flat look'.


    That's it. The world has just ended. :^P

    --

    http://home.nc.rr.com/christianbonanno/
     
    CFB, Aug 12, 2005
    #19
  20. Paul Flackett

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:53 GMT, in rec.photo.digital Padme
    <> wrote:

    >He was trying to help someone too.


    Really?

    From: Padme <>
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    Subject: Re: Digital workflow - need some help please
    User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
    Message-ID:
    <>
    Lines: 24
    Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 00:25:53 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.11.186
    X-Complaints-To:
    X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1123806353 66.57.11.186 (Thu, 11 Aug 2005
    20:25:53 EDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:25:53 EDT
    Organization: Road Runner - NC


    vs

    From: CFB <>
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
    Subject: Re: Digital workflow - need some help please
    Message-ID: <>
    Lines: 31
    Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:43:55 GMT
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.57.11.186
    X-Complaints-To:
    X-Trace: twister.southeast.rr.com 1123789435 66.57.11.186 (Thu, 11 Aug 2005
    15:43:55 EDT)
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 15:43:55 EDT
    Organization: Road Runner - NC

    and guess what one finds searching this IP on google? Do us all a favor
    and please just leave it be.
    ----------
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
    http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index.html
     
    Ed Ruf, Aug 12, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Azzz1588

    Re: Sports Illustrated digital workflow

    Azzz1588, Apr 3, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    568
    John Navas
    Apr 5, 2004
  2. Alan Browne

    Re: Sports Illustrated digital workflow

    Alan Browne, Apr 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    325
    John Navas
    Apr 5, 2004
  3. Jimmy

    Faster digital workflow sought

    Jimmy, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    592
  4. nk

    digital workflow

    nk, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    272
    Renato V.
    Jul 16, 2005
  5. Richard H.

    Need a fast cropping workflow

    Richard H., Sep 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    948
    www.kevinkienlein.com
    Oct 3, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page