Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2671 posts, RR: 65 Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1753 times:
Hello Malcolm.
Everyone seems to have their favourite where this is concerned, but after various adventures I settled on 0.2 and 0, and I feel it serves me well. Generally I begin with the settings 500%, 0.2 and 0.
Malandan From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2004, 366 posts, RR: 22 Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1714 times:
Quoting Psych (Reply 1): Generally I begin with the settings 500%, 0.2 and 0.
Thanks Paul.
Quoting ChrisH (Reply 2): I never understood the fascination with always sharpening using set values.
Sounds suspiciously like a put-down Chris!
Are you saying that you can look at an image and decide that it needs 0.2 and 0 or 0.3 and 3?
As regards the percentage, you have to start somewhere and work progressively, logically using diminishing values.
I strongly suspect that most of us use fixed radius and threshold values and I was interested to know what these were.
Maybe film should be treated differently to digital?
Anyone else care to comment?
Malcolm.
My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1359 posts, RR: 70 Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1703 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
The threshold certainly needs to be higher than 0 with scanned film to avoid oversharpening the grain though increasing it reduces the efficacy of USM so being counter productive at high levels.
The photoshop book says,
Scans made from 35mm film originals may benefit from being sharpenedwith a higher threshold setting than would need to be applied to a 120 film scan.
As to sharpening with set values, whilst I agree that each shot needs its own, they are a variation on a theme in my mind. I have a set value that I increase or reduce a bit to suit the image.
I use CS smart sharpen around 80% at 0.3 as my starting point.
Garry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 170 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1699 times:
Hi Malcolm - I've wondered about this myself and like Paul have 500, 0.2 and 0 as the starting settings.
A point perhaps you may also consider is what the sharpness settings are in the camera itself. Perhaps its the combination of this setting and the subsequent setting in Photoshop that may be of interest. For example, if the sharpness is turned off in camera, or to its lowest setting, it would be reasonable to assume that additional sharpness would be required while editing. Similarly, a modest application of sharpening in camera may require less in editing.
I'm not sure there is a right or wrong answer, i for one, have recently had a photo rejected for oversharp, only then to have it subsequently rejected for soft.
ChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 26 Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1680 times:
Quoting Malandan (Reply 3): Are you saying that you can look at an image and decide that it needs 0.2 and 0 or 0.3 and 3?
yes of course, just drag the sliders and look at the image, look for a good overall look and presto. If you see jaggies, paint them away with history brush or use the duplicate layer technique.
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2373 posts, RR: 53 Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1669 times:
Quoting Malandan (Thread starter): Would anyone care to comment as to these settings and is there an obvious preference
My first comment would be "do not use PS usm in the first place" Malcolm.
My second comment "there is no fixed setting".
Every lens needs a different usm setting as does a change in distance, camera setting, light circomstances and so on.
Without a dedicated tool like Fred Miranda's Sharpening Pro it will remain a case of trial and error in my view.
Airplanepics From United Kingdom (England), joined Jun 2003, 2705 posts, RR: 54 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1658 times:
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):
My first comment would be "do not use PS usm in the first place" Malcolm.
I agree with Willem, take a look at third-party sharpen plug-ins. I've just tried out a plug-in called Focal Blade, and now love it!
Malandan From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2004, 366 posts, RR: 22 Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
Sorrry but I am unable to reply using the “quote selected text” function due to a modem problem.
Thanks, Mick, for a helpful response, and I understand the point about variation. Unfortunately I am using Elements so do not have access to “smart sharpen”.
Gary, I always keep the in-camera sharpening turned off, preferring to have greater control over the sharpening process even if it results in an increase in process time.
I understand the point you are making Chris, and will not deny the part that the Mark 1 eyeball plays in the process, but you continue to ignore my original question. The sharpening function in Photoshop requires the entry of values in to the parameters. I was looking for guidance as to what values to choose, even as a starting point
Willem’s and Simon’s suggestions are appreciated and I will certainly have a look at the software you refer to.
“Photography is an art, not a science. Good luck trying to blindly enter settings in and hoping to get the best results.”
Like the man said, Harry – “you can’t be serious”
Also it is rather an insult to suggest that I may be “blindly” and “hoping”, just the type of words which set so many threads spinning off in the wrong direction, but I refuse to rise to your bait.
How often have we seen threads raised by individuals who have purchased the right equipment but who lack the knowledge to process their results to acceptable levels. That surely is the science bit. The relationship between speed and aperature, depth of focus, exposure, and so much more, are surely also the science part of our activities. A camera is merely a tool which without an understanding of its function and potential, the achievement of photographic artistic aspirations is unlikely.
Malcolm.
My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
Flybhx From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1583 times:
I saw a letter in a magazine this week which suggested that using high pass was better than USM. Any comments on the use of this for aviation subjects?
Aviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2373 posts, RR: 53 Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1572 times:
Quoting Newark777 (Reply 9): Photography is an art, not a science.
The "art" part is a nice bonus for interesting idea's but you still need the "math" to make it work.
Without the right numbers you are left with just nice idea's but nothing usable.
Quoting Malandan (Reply 10): "Photography is an art, not a science. Good luck trying to blindly enter settings in and hoping to get the best results."
Like the man said, Harry -- "you can't be serious"
Quoting Malandan (Reply 10): Willem's and Simon's suggestions are appreciated and I will certainly have a look at the software you refer to.
To my best knowledge USM works on a contrast difference, noise is also a difference in contrast.......... I am sure you can feel it coming
USM enhances noise as well and apart from that it sharpens everything in the frame which is usually unwanted.
With the dedicated tool from Fred Miranda it is possible to isolate the subject from the rest.
Quoting Flybhx (Reply 11): I saw a letter in a magazine this week which suggested that using high pass was better than USM
Don't know how this filter is used in the sharpening process.
Fiveholer From United States, joined Jun 1999, 882 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
CRTL-J, Filter/Other/Highpass, 0.3, set layer to "Linear Light", adjust layer opacity to your liking/erase jaggies with your favorite eraser settings if necessary, flatten layers. I made an action that does this for you up to the point where you adjust opacity/erase jaggies.
Coninpa From Belgium, joined May 2005, 176 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
There are no settings which work all the time. So many factors can intervene (paint schemes can provoque immediate jaggies, ligth, etc...). The camera and lenses used also induce different processing methods.
If jaggies are likely to appear, I usually start with CS2 Smart sharp (between 40 and 80 at 0,3) but on a mask (Process described by Jeff Miller) so as to "paint" the sharpness only where it is needed and to avoid jaggies
Next, to finish or reinforce sharpness where needed, I do an extra-sharoenning (on a mask) with USM 200-500 at 0.2 and paint again.
I often do several copies with different settings that I then compare. Then I go for a break and come back with rested eyes. Usually, I still find some corrections to make or sharpness to add.
Nevertheless, I still get rejections for oversharpened or soft...
One day maybe...
Newark777 From United States, joined Dec 2004, 8796 posts, RR: 41 Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
Quoting Malandan (Reply 10): A camera is merely a tool which without an understanding of its function and potential, the achievement of photographic artistic aspirations is unlikely.
Exactly, it is just a tool, as is PS, yet photography is much more than the tools used. You must have the eye for the subject, and know what you are looking for.
That is why setting a standard procedure in PS and saying it applies to most photos is ridiculous. Each photo must be dealt with on its own.
Quoting Aviopic (Reply 12): The "art" part is a nice bonus for interesting idea's but you still need the "math" to make it work.
Without the right numbers you are left with just nice idea's but nothing usable.
That applies to just about anything in the physical world. Math is a part of everything.
Sponsor Message: 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Mar 2004, 366 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2671 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2373 posts, 
From United States, joined Dec 2004, 8796 posts, 
From Belgium, joined May 2005, 176 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
