Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Sharpening In Photoshop  
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6427 times:

Apologies if this subject has been raised previously but a search revealed nought.

I've had a moment of uncertainty regarding the settings to use when sharpening the final image.

I looked among the various processing procedures that have been published in the forums and there appears to be significant variation, namely

Radius 0.4 Threshold 0
Radius 0.3 Threshold 3 recommended twice
Radius 0.3 Threshold 0 recommended twice
Radius 0.2 Threshold 0

Would anyone care to comment as to these settings and is there an obvious preference?

Malcolm.


My interest lies in the future as I am going to spend the rest of my life there!
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePsych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 3064 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6418 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.

That's what I would recommend.

All the best.

Paul


User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6403 times:

Easiest way is to use your eyes? I never understood the fascination with always sharpening using set values. Each shot requires its own setting


what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6379 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!
User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1689 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6368 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD 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.

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineGarry From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 185 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6364 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.
 worried 



www.garryridsdale.com
User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6345 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.



what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6334 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.

Willem



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineAirplanepics From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2003, 2739 posts, RR: 40
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6323 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!

Simon.



Simon - London-Aviation.com
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6305 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?

Photography is an art, not a science. Good luck trying to blindly enter settings in and hoping to get the best results.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineMalandan From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 380 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6257 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!
User currently offlineFlybhx From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6248 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?

User currently offlineAviopic From Netherlands, joined Mar 2004, 2681 posts, RR: 41
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 6237 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"

 checkmark 

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 Big grin
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.



The truth lives in one’s mind, it doesn’t really exist
User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6205 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.

Danny

[Edited 2006-09-03 16:04:03]

[Edited 2006-09-03 16:04:46]


Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlineConinpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 246 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 6187 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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.  Wink

Nevertheless, I still get rejections for oversharpened or soft...  Sad
One day maybe... Cool



Patrick De Coninck
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6166 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.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Sharpening In Photoshop posted Wed Apr 14 2004 18:24:39 by Ua935
Do You Use Sharpening In Camera Raw? posted Thu May 18 2006 07:44:35 by Seachaz
Processing In Photoshop Elements 2. posted Wed Jan 18 2006 11:31:52 by Malandan
Canon RAW In Photoshop CS2 posted Tue Jan 17 2006 20:05:54 by Nirmalmakadia
Can You Correct Overexposure In Photoshop? posted Sun May 8 2005 00:17:32 by A340Spotter
Cloning In Photoshop Elements posted Mon May 2 2005 05:34:10 by TWAMD-80
Resizing In Photoshop? posted Tue Apr 5 2005 22:15:26 by BaylorAirBear
How Do I Level A Shot In Photoshop? posted Sun Jun 20 2004 09:30:39 by UA935
Do You Use Auto Xxxxx In Photoshop For Your Photos posted Sun Jan 25 2004 16:47:21 by MartinairYYZ
Time Spent In Photoshop posted Mon Jul 21 2003 23:33:56 by Sleekjet