The Nature, Wildlife and Pet Photography Forum - Fine Art Landscape Photography

oversharpening

Posted By: DavidRamey

oversharpening - 10/26/07 08:51 PM

Lately I have noticed a lot of good photos that I think are being less than they could be by oversharpening. When a photo is oversharpened, it takes on an artificial and plastic look, not something you would see with your own eyes if you were there. Has anybody else noticed this or is it just me?
Posted By: RomanJohnston

Re: oversharpening - 10/26/07 09:01 PM

Examples?

Roman
Posted By: DavidRamey

Re: oversharpening - 10/26/07 09:22 PM

Roman,
I didn't want to point out examples because I didn't want to point fingers at anybody. My intention was to start a dialog about sharpening and proper techniques. You can go through the photos and see for yourself the oversharpening that is taking place.
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: oversharpening - 10/26/07 10:39 PM

David,
this is where things get difficult when looking at digital images -- what might be over-sharpening to you might be the way I saw the image in my mind's eye.

Let me start by saying that I agree with you. Many of the images I see posted look to me as if they are sharpened beyond the ability of any lens I've seen to resolve. Having said that, is it "wrong" to sharpen a scene to a level that matches what my eyes see versus what my lens sees? I have 20/18 vision (thank you, Lord). I see things pretty clearly. Do I sharpen in post-production to match that vision?

Or, do I match what I remember film used to look like? Keeping in mind that film has its own limitations in terms of ability to resolve detail.

My own preference is to under-sharpen. The sharper the lens I used to capture the image, the less sharpening I apply in post-production. While that may seem intuitive, it isn't always the case. When I shoot portraits of people, I like them a little soft. It tends to hide skin blemishes. When I shoot landscapes, I like them fairly sharp. Not razor sharp because over distance, atmospheric conditions tend to soften the details. When I shoot macro, I want as much detail as I can squeeze out of the image both on the front end (lens) and the back end (post-production).

The problem for many of us is that we tend to use the same sharpening steps and levels regardless of what we're shooting. I use Photokit Sharpener which is a 3-stage sharpening plug-in which allows you to sharpen the basic image, apply "creative" sharpening to a desired level and then post-sharpen for whatever output device you're using.

I find this approach forces me to think about just how much apparent sharpness I want in my images. My own personal objective is to produce "film-like" images. And in my mind's eye, that film is more like Ektachrome than Kodachrome. But that's me. For others, the objective may be very different.

What's your sharpening objective?

Jim
Posted By: Julie

Re: oversharpening - 10/27/07 02:26 AM

Its probably mine, during the resizing and posting they are getting very artifacty, which, they are not in full size. Part of the reason I oversharpen photos for the web,is it also makes them reproduce like crap. So, they print terribly

Part of the problem though I am having is the technique I use to make them print well, does not resize well at all. Given the choice, the printing is more important. It does drive me a bit crazy to see them like that though.
Posted By: Julie

Re: oversharpening - 10/27/07 02:27 AM

Let me rephrase that, they print well at FULL size, but badly at web size. I reread that and it made no sense!
Posted By: glamson

Re: oversharpening - 10/27/07 04:05 AM

Quote:

Lately I have noticed a lot of good photos that I think are being less than they could be by oversharpening. When a photo is oversharpened, it takes on an artificial and plastic look, not something you would see with your own eyes if you were there. Has anybody else noticed this or is it just me?




You have touched upon an issue that drives me crazy when I'm post processing. I guess I agree with Jim about not being restricted to the sharpness of film or the lens when the digital image can reveal more detail through sharpening. With just about every image I always am torn about just how much to sharpen it. Again I agree with Jim that for portraits and subjects, I try not to sharpen too much. With landscapes, I try to sharpen to what my eye remembers, or at least what I want it to remember.

The other issue I have with sharpness is the effects when downsizing for the web. My native dimensions are 3904x2616 pixels and I usally try to limit the height of web posted photo to 600 pixels. This means I'm usually downsizing about 3-4 fold. I have found that the algorithm used to downsize can really effect sharpness. For example, I have found that bicubic which is so good for upsizing, is terrible for downsizing. I usually find that when I downsize, I often have to sharpen just a little and at low resolution, sharpening effects have greater effects making it tricky. One thing I never do is use an image prepped for printing on the web. More sharpening is definitely needed for printing and they look oversharpened on the web.

Having said all this, I have to admit that I think I have developed a liking for sharper images and I may be guilty at times of "over" sharpening at times.
Posted By: Buddy Thomason

Re: oversharpening - 10/27/07 10:42 PM

They say sharpening is to the image what spice is to food - a little goes a long way and too much ruins it. To keep me from the temptation of over-sharpening I use the 'sharpen for output' rule.

My 'original' tiff file is saved immediately after RAW conversion. From there I duplicate the original and process depending on output.

Web based images get a whole different workflow from print images. I typically sharpen for print tiffs three times during the workflow. I sharpen for the web jpgs once only, and then usually not globally but selectively using a sharpening brush. In both cases sharpening is the last thing I do before saving the finished file.

Also, if the subject is 'at risk' for over sharpening I will often downsize and resample for the web using bicubic rather than bicubic sharper. Initially the image is too soft but if image data has been properly preserved and treated up to that point, then I can brush sharpen selectively with good results. (There is no chance for good final sharpening of a jpg file if there's been too much and/or the wrong kind of data loss between the camera and the point of sharpening.)

It's a deep subject of course, and many variables are involved. The more complex sharpening formulas are more complex by virtue of attempting to effectively address a greater number of relevant variables in hopes of a better result.

For me at least, since every image is different, every sharpening protocol is thus different - usually just a little different but sometimes a lot. Very few areas of post-processing benefit from experience like sharpening does. Eventually less becomes more.
Posted By: James Morrissey

Re: oversharpening - 10/29/07 05:16 PM

"I typically sharpen for print tiffs three times during the workflow. I sharpen for the web jpgs once only, and then usually not globally but selectively using a sharpening brush."

Hey Buddy,

Can you give an example of when you would sharpen an image like this? I typically only sharpen once - in the Raw file when I am making the conversion in Capture One. I try to not sharpen the image again.

Sometimes, for web files, I will add a small amount of USM to pull out detail in fur, eyes, etc....

James
Posted By: glamson

Re: oversharpening - 10/29/07 06:53 PM

Quote:

"I typically sharpen for print tiffs three times during the workflow. I sharpen for the web jpgs once only, and then usually not globally but selectively using a sharpening brush."

Hey Buddy,

Can you give an example of when you would sharpen an image like this? I typically only sharpen once - in the Raw file when I am making the conversion in Capture One. I try to not sharpen the image again.

Sometimes, for web files, I will add a small amount of USM to pull out detail in fur, eyes, etc....

James




James,

Excuse me if I jump in here. I too am also curious about Buddy sharpening 3 times. In my work flow I use Nikon Capture NX for raw conversion and they recommend a 2 step sharpening. One light sharpening at the conversion to compensate for the AA filter in Nikon cameras which is often pretty conservative (D200, D2X). They call this the "capture" sharpening. The second sharpening comes after the image is PP'd (levels, NR, saturation) and then final sharpening is done for output, web or printing. For the web I go straight to a jpeg and for printing to a Tiff. There is only one other type of sharpening I do during PP which is selective sharpening using a sharpening "brush" to hit certain areas I would like to accentuate like eyes. So you could say I do 2 and half steps in PP.

There is one more place I sharpen and that is if I downsize for the web. I use PSPXI for my bit map editor and when I downsize signigicantly I usually find that there is a softening of the image. I often apply just a tad of USM on the final image. So for web images I do use 3 steps many times and if I do selective sharpening then I guess you could say 3 and half steps.

This is my "normal" work flow and I'm not going to get into when I need to do bit map editing (layers, blending, etc) in PSP and use only a capture sharpened tiff converted from NX as the starting point.

Sharpening is probably one of the most controversial issues out there and it is truly amazing to me the schemes and software out thery available to handle it.
Posted By: Buddy Thomason

Re: oversharpening - 10/30/07 03:50 AM

Following is one of my somewhat common approaches to sharpening a TIFF file for print in three stages. The first time I sharpen is during noise reduction (I use Noise Ninja). Digital noise typically resides in the blue channel and removing it softens detail a little. I therefore first sharpen the blue channel.

Since color, tone, exposure, shadow and contrast issues were dealt with in Camera Raw prior to conversion, I move from noise reduction to layers, filters etc. - whatever is required to move the image closer to a final version. After merging layers I often make a duplicate layer, change to luminosity, apply smart sharpen with settings that can vary based on the image, then reduce opacity, often to as low as 10%.

Finally, after merging the sharpened layer, soft proofing and doing whatever else is needed I will often burn and dodge locally to enhance the critical areas of contrast and finish by locally sharpening those critical areas with a brush at very low settings (maybe 5 hardness and 5-10 strength).

I never sharpen very much at any given time. If I'm working on an image that will need a lot of contrast and sharpening work I'll sometimes duplicate the background layer twice, use the high pass filter on one layer then switch to overlay and reduce opacity to approx. 10. Then I will take the second duplicated layer, move it to the top, desaturate it and switch to hard light, again reducing to 10 or so. This is a common (for me) alternative sharpening method. There are many others of course like lab sharpening, plug ins (Intellisharpen is one I use - per Fred Miranda) and of course others.

Hope this makes sense. In no way do I consider myself an expert in this area - just a pilgrim on the path.
Posted By: wapiti

Re: oversharpening - 10/30/07 04:17 PM

Good stuff, guys. Lots of information here. Keep it coming.
Posted By: Kim Letkeman

Re: oversharpening - 11/01/07 12:30 PM

In a thread about sharpening, I must admit to some surprise to seeing no mention of Bruce Fraser's Real World Image Sharpening book, where he describes the 3 stage sharpening protocol very clearly. Capture sharpening to remove the effects of digitizing and anti-aliasing; creative sharpening to emphasize certain parts of the image (soften skin, sharpen eyes, add local contrast, etc); and finally, output sharpening for your specific media. Bruce has calculated the maximum amount of sharpening to can apply to get halos to exist just below the threshold of visibility, which means that your image is as sharp as it can be without looking "digital" ...

I find this prototol really changes the way you approach sharpening. Nothing ever feels random about the process, especially if you use PKSharpener from Pixel Genius. This plugin implements all the different options in Bruce's book.

What I do to handle different media from the same image is to save an intermediate version with all my edits, then make two version ... one for the web, which is output sharpened at 800px, wide, medium, narrow or superfine edges depending on the subject; and one for the size of print, say 12x18 upsized to 300ppi then sharpened using the contone (continuous tones) setting for 300ppi glossy. Matte uses slightly more sharpening because ink tends to bleed more on matte surfaces.

I've found that my prints look consistently sharp and my web images have stopped looking over sharpened.

For upsizing, I use the excellent DOP_Upsizing automation plugin that implements a form of stepped bicubic with intermediate sharpening. It retains detail better than any other method I've used. There is an interesting companion article on that site to go with this (free) plugin. Digital Outback Photo by the way.

Hope that's of interest to some.
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: oversharpening - 11/01/07 01:16 PM

Kim,
I use PKSharpener as well and find the 3-stage sharpening technique works very well with RAW files which is what I shoot primarily. The plug-in's sharpening brushes and the flexibility to use luminance or high pass sharpening at different levels gives a tremendous amount of flexibility with different subject matter of different contrast ratios.

And I like the fact that you can sharpen the output for whatever device you're using whether it's my Epson 1800 or MPIX's photo output.

On the other hand, I've been testing CS3 and its implementation of Smart Sharpening is pretty good especially if you don't mind fading it out some at 200% view to remove the "grain".

I find that you have to use your own judgment about sharpening -- some subject matter demands a lot of it; some requires only judicious applications of it. Which is why I like PKSharpener because it gives you three levels of sharpening and lets you see what you're getting at each level.

As for upsizing, I seldom print larger than 8X10 and usually don't have to do any interpolation from my original files and, when I do, I find that PhotoShop's Bicubic Smooth does just fine. But I don't make large prints very often so I can't comment on how well it works for major resizing.

Jim
Posted By: OlympusGuy

Re: oversharpening - 11/02/07 08:48 PM

In reacting to all these posts:

1. Generally I have my Oly E-510 set to sharpen by 1 step, as it moves me that much closer to the the finished Photoshop sharpening. I find that the camera's normal setting is a bit soft for my taste.

2. I have yet to develop a sophisticated sharpening process (and would appreciate any tips). I just set PS's Unsharp Masking control to 10%, enlarge the image to 100% and "slowly creep up on it," monitoring sharp-edges in the image. When they just begin to halo, I go back one step, or two steps and use the Sharpen Edge control if that makes it look good.

3. When I resize down I make another copy of the image and resharpen, since every time I size down an image it seems to grow less sharp.

Leonard
Posted By: Jim Garvie

Re: oversharpening - 11/02/07 09:05 PM

Leonard,
sounds like you're shooting jpegs and letting the camera's processor apply some sharpening before you get the image into PS. I shoot RAW almost exclusively for my professional jobs and so the PK Sharpener's first step essentially matches what you're getting from the camera's processor. As you know, RAW files are not processed in camera at all.

While I've use PS's unsharp mask with good success -- and the newer versions in Smart Sharpen -- I find the levels and types of sharpening available in PK Sharpener to have much more flexibility and control. Again, I can always fade down any filter but the ability to sharpen just edges or just luminance is really very helpful. And they have a couple of sharpening algorithms which they call Super Sharpen 1 through 4 which really snap things up. They are usually much too aggressive for me but they are there for the occasional macro shot that just can't be too sharp.

When I process a show, I'll play around with the first few images until I get the look I want and then use that procedure for the rest of the images from that show. So the first two or 3 images might take 10 minutes each to get processed but the rest can be done in less than 5 each. Which really helps when you're processing several hundred images!

If you like what you're getting using PS only, then go with it. If you'd like to check out other sharpening software, look at PK Sharpener, Nik and others -- most offer free downloads and trial periods -- and see if they produce better results for you.

Cheers,

Jim
Posted By: OlympusGuy

Re: oversharpening - 04/25/08 11:04 PM

Now that I'm using NikSharpen, it's a whole new ballgame. This plug-in seems to "co-opt" PS's sharpening tools in a way that presents me with needle-sharp images without any haloing. It can sharpen globally or selectively. I use this procedure pretty much exclusively now, and I have all but abandoned Unsharp Mask, Smart Sharpen, Sharpen Edges, etc. I mean, why muck around with complicated time-consuming operations when it can be done faster and better some other way?

One "problem" however: it takes print size and viewing distance into consideration, so that means I must make copies of unsharpened/uncropped prints (taking up yet more space) for various size prints and also for images used exclusively on the web. So my workflow has become more complicated. But the finished images are worth it!

Leonard
Posted By: OlympusGuy

Re: oversharpening - 04/27/08 12:15 PM

Reading the posts above, and now that I'm learning to use NikSharpen, I see that with the ability to selectively sharpen comes a whole new factor to contemplate when editing: what areas of an image would benefit from more sharpening, and by how much? "Automatic knee-jerk" global sharpening now seems to me to be a bit heavy-handed in many applications. Offhand, I would tend to give the eyes and mouth (in portraits) more sharpening. In nature images, I think I'd use sharpening and blurring to guide the viewer's eyes to the parts of the image I'd want to emphasize. Thoughts, reactions?

Cheers,

Leonard
Posted By: OlympusGuy

Re: oversharpening - 10/25/09 06:27 AM

Post deleted
Posted By: Julie

Re: oversharpening - 10/25/09 11:47 PM

You can always sharpen on a duplicate layer, apply a mask and paint out the areas you don't want sharp. Which, is what I do fairly often
© 2024 The Nature, Wildlife and Pet Photography Forum