Which Sharpening Tools (Page 2): All I use is the sharpening feature of LR.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

kenArchi wrote:

There are a variety of sharpening tools.
I only have elements 11.
Unsharp mask, auto sharpen, adjust sharpness and (high pass?).

All I use is the sharpening feature of LR.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

Apaflo wrote:

Thats a recipe for a really good apple pie, but the question is about orange marmalade! There is no connection between the resolving power of a lens, assisted by good technique, and what is done with a "sharpen" tool in software! None. Two different things.

Software sharpening is always useful on an image produced by a camera using a Bayer Color Filter Array (almost all DSLR's). The reason is because each image pixel is defined from a matrix of sensor locations. Because a matrix is used the shortest pixel distance that is possible for a tone transition is about 6 pixels, but is more commonly about 12. Ideally it would be 1 pixel from pure black to pure white, but that is impossible with a Bayer CFA.

Sharpening reduces the number of pixels needed for a tone transition.

However, there are three common ways to do that, each with slightly different effects. What is called a high pass sharpen tool, or just "Sharpen", looks for multiple consecutive tone transitions and makes them have higher contrast. It has less effect on a single tone transition, but a technique called "Unsharp Mask", or USM, looks for just one transition (and averages multiple transitions to just one tone) adds contrast to single tone transitions. Obviously those two techniques can produce very different results. USM can be adjusted to see each transition in a sequence as if it is just one single transition, and can in effect do almost the same thing as a Sharpen tool. One significant difference is that USM cannot be reversed, while a high pass filter can be adjusted to reverse the effects of a low pass filter.

One other technique, for those who get really serious, is deconvolution. The best example is the Richardson-Lucy technique (used to adjust for the error in the original Hubble telescope). Unlike the other two methods that do not really increase resolving power, and merely add visual acuity with increased contrast, deconvolution can actually increase resolution. It just is not easy to use though...

Another variation of USM and/or Sharpen should be mentioned too. "Smart Sharpen" is a technique to find the significant edges in an image and apply sharpen only where it is most useful. That has the advantage of not sharpening noise, for example.

What's it all mean though, and how do you use that information? Realize that if an image has been reduced in size from the original, USM will probably have more effect. If the image as been enlarged Sharpen will probably have more effect. Also there are different filters that can be used, and a sharper filter works best on images that have been reduced in size, while a smooth filter works best for enlarged images.

Any particular image will benefit from either USM or Sharpen, and using both is probably the best solution.

Thats a recipe for a really good apple pie, but th... (show quote)

This is all very interesting. You describe this technical issue very clearly. I do use more than one sharpening tool on my images, because I discovered that a "little of this, little of that" works better than only one, just did not truly understand why. You mention the High Pass filter, but not much discussion of it. This is one I use a lot. Comments on the pros and cons of that one would be appreciated.

Susan

ChrisW. Loc: Medina Co., OH

Apaflo, thanks for the useful information as I recently started using Photoshop and lightroom. Your explanation helps to understand the difference and how it effects the quality of the picture!! Thank you

Apaflo wrote:

Thats a recipe for a really good apple pie, but the question is about orange marmalade! There is no connection between the resolving power of a lens, assisted by good technique, and what is done with a "sharpen" tool in software! None. Two different things.

Software sharpening is always useful on an image produced by a camera using a Bayer Color Filter Array (almost all DSLR's). The reason is because each image pixel is defined from a matrix of sensor locations. Because a matrix is used the shortest pixel distance that is possible for a tone transition is about 6 pixels, but is more commonly about 12. Ideally it would be 1 pixel from pure black to pure white, but that is impossible with a Bayer CFA.

Sharpening reduces the number of pixels needed for a tone transition.

However, there are three common ways to do that, each with slightly different effects. What is called a high pass sharpen tool, or just "Sharpen", looks for multiple consecutive tone transitions and makes them have higher contrast. It has less effect on a single tone transition, but a technique called "Unsharp Mask", or USM, looks for just one transition (and averages multiple transitions to just one tone) adds contrast to single tone transitions. Obviously those two techniques can produce very different results. USM can be adjusted to see each transition in a sequence as if it is just one single transition, and can in effect do almost the same thing as a Sharpen tool. One significant difference is that USM cannot be reversed, while a high pass filter can be adjusted to reverse the effects of a low pass filter.

One other technique, for those who get really serious, is deconvolution. The best example is the Richardson-Lucy technique (used to adjust for the error in the original Hubble telescope). Unlike the other two methods that do not really increase resolving power, and merely add visual acuity with increased contrast, deconvolution can actually increase resolution. It just is not easy to use though...

Another variation of USM and/or Sharpen should be mentioned too. "Smart Sharpen" is a technique to find the significant edges in an image and apply sharpen only where it is most useful. That has the advantage of not sharpening noise, for example.

What's it all mean though, and how do you use that information? Realize that if an image has been reduced in size from the original, USM will probably have more effect. If the image as been enlarged Sharpen will probably have more effect. Also there are different filters that can be used, and a sharper filter works best on images that have been reduced in size, while a smooth filter works best for enlarged images.

Any particular image will benefit from either USM or Sharpen, and using both is probably the best solution.

Thats a recipe for a really good apple pie, but th... (show quote)

MichaelH Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI

ChrisW. wrote:

Apaflo, thanks for the useful information as I rec... (show quote)

"I second that emotion" - Smokey Robinson

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I sharpen my Nikon files with Nikon Capture NX2. Capture was developed with Nik software to work with Nikon files. None of the other softwares I use gives me more natural results.
One thing which is very important when sharpening is not to overdo it or the file will gain artifacts and will not look natural.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It depends upon the particular image and how you intend to use it.

I shoot mostly RAW, so there's no sharpening applied to my images "in camera" (the way there would be, if I were saving JPEGs).

My workflow is then to do quick straightening and global adjustments in Lightroom. I leave the sharpening there set to the defaults.... only produce smaller images directly from LR. "Proof" size, usually 700 to 800 pixels on the long side, at most. Those are "sharpened for screen" or "sharpened for print" at default settings upon output ("Export").

Any time I have a higher use planned for an image, I pass it off from LR to Photoshop for more complete finishing, without any sharpening other than what LR applies by default.

I then finish most everything else in the image... especially any retouching, noise reduction and image re-sizing... before doing any more sharpening to an image.

Sometimes when focus is off slightly or there's a wee bit of motion blur, a high-pass technique will make for a usable image. I almost always do this selectively, using a mask. Unlike most other forms of sharpening, I may do a high-pass sharpening earlier in the workflow, before re-sizing an image.

Most of the time, as one of my very last steps... after images have been retouched, had NR applied, and been resized to their intended use.... I apply unsharp mask. But occasionally for smaller, low resolution images I'll just use smart sharpen (which is more automated and doesn't allow me to do as much tweaking).

Unsharp mask has more possible adjustments that I can make, if needed, and I often apply unsharp mask selectively using layers and masks, much like I do with high pass. Selective application helps prevent artifacts or granularity in out of focus backgrounds or foreground objects, by not applying any sharpening to them, or by applying a weakened version of it. Depending upon the image, I may even add blur selectively, using layers and masks.

You should experiment with each method and learn how it works, the results it produces and when to use it on your images.

I'm careful to be viewing the image close to its final intended size when applying sharpening. I see a lot of images that appear over or under-sharpened, suspect that's often because folks are looking at the image either larger or smaller than it will actually be used when they are applying sharpening, so are applying too much or too little. Sure, I may magnify the image to inspect more closely for artifacts, but for the overall look I try to judge it based upon actual size.

One exception is when clients buy (actually "license") a digital file I do minimal sharpening simply because I don't know their final intended use(s). Any commercial usage, it's best left to the art director to decide what's needed, if anything. Most of the better stock agencies ask that you not sharpen images too. Private parties may post an image on a website or social media in small size and low resolution, or make a high quality 8x12 print from it to frame and hang on the wall, display it on a TV screen in HD or UHD, or anything in between.

Maik723

Sharpen Project 1.

Ratta Loc: California

camerapapi wrote:

I sharpen my Nikon files with Nikon Capture NX2. Capture was developed with Nik software to work with Nikon files. None of the other softwares I use gives me more natural results.
One thing which is very important when sharpening is not to overdo it or the file will gain artifacts and will not look natural.

After playing around with all sorts of sharpening methods and programs - enough to make my head spin - and pixel peeping the results, I settled on this work flow: Topaz DeNoise followed by PS Smart Sharpen followed by 2 "clicks" on ON1 2017's Chisel to instantly remove any halos that may be present. I print mostly 13x19 and I'm very satisfied with the result. Decrease noise - sharpen - remove halo.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

ggttc wrote:

After wading thru several 30 day free trials finally decided on piccure.

My usual workflow has picture+ in after LR adjustments for lens and so on.

From a moving tram. Used picture+ to help with motion issues in the image.

(Download)

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

amfoto1 wrote:

It depends upon the particular image and how you intend to use it.

I shoot mostly RAW, so there's no sharpening applied to my images "in camera" (the way there would be, if I were saving JPEGs).

My workflow is then to do quick straightening and global adjustments in Lightroom. I leave the sharpening there set to the defaults.... only produce smaller images directly from LR. "Proof" size, usually 700 to 800 pixels on the long side, at most. Those are "sharpened for screen" or "sharpened for print" at default settings upon output ("Export").

Any time I have a higher use planned for an image, I pass it off from LR to Photoshop for more complete finishing, without any sharpening other than what LR applies by default.

I then finish most everything else in the image... especially any retouching, noise reduction and image re-sizing... before doing any more sharpening to an image.

Sometimes when focus is off slightly or there's a wee bit of motion blur, a high-pass technique will make for a usable image. I almost always do this selectively, using a mask. Unlike most other forms of sharpening, I may do a high-pass sharpening earlier in the workflow, before re-sizing an image.

Most of the time, as one of my very last steps... after images have been retouched, had NR applied, and been resized to their intended use.... I apply unsharp mask. But occasionally for smaller, low resolution images I'll just use smart sharpen (which is more automated and doesn't allow me to do as much tweaking).

Unsharp mask has more possible adjustments that I can make, if needed, and I often apply unsharp mask selectively using layers and masks, much like I do with high pass. Selective application helps prevent artifacts or granularity in out of focus backgrounds or foreground objects, by not applying any sharpening to them, or by applying a weakened version of it. Depending upon the image, I may even add blur selectively, using layers and masks.

You should experiment with each method and learn how it works, the results it produces and when to use it on your images.

I'm careful to be viewing the image close to its final intended size when applying sharpening. I see a lot of images that appear over or under-sharpened, suspect that's often because folks are looking at the image either larger or smaller than it will actually be used when they are applying sharpening, so are applying too much or too little. Sure, I may magnify the image to inspect more closely for artifacts, but for the overall look I try to judge it based upon actual size.

One exception is when clients buy (actually "license") a digital file I do minimal sharpening simply because I don't know their final intended use(s). Any commercial usage, it's best left to the art director to decide what's needed, if anything. Most of the better stock agencies ask that you not sharpen images too. Private parties may post an image on a website or social media in small size and low resolution, or make a high quality 8x12 print from it to frame and hang on the wall, display it on a TV screen in HD or UHD, or anything in between.

It depends upon the particular image and how you i... (show quote)

Thank you! This is another great description of ways and when to use sharpening.

I think I have been overdoing it, have seen recommendations to wait until other editing is done - making it the last task in the process. Began realizing this when I started wondering about the "halos" around my subjects, and saw a mention of "halos" being a result of over-sharpening. Starting to back off a bit, but it is a hard habit to stop! Mostly I like that sharpness, have heard it is good for when printing an image, but do not like the artifacts.

Susan

Kissel vonKeister Loc: Georgia

Apaflo wrote:

Picking the right tool for the job is equally impo... (show quote)

I don't think he's listening.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

SusanFromVermont wrote:

Thank you! This is another great description of w... (show quote)

I work for the clearest, sharpest image possible. The less images are touched in PP the better they tend to look.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Sinewsworn wrote:

I work for the clearest, sharpest image possible. The less images are touched in PP the better they tend to look.

Only true if (and only if) you spend vastly more time making exactly the same adjustments with the camera's JPEG configuration.

Adjusting the camera, which has much courser adjustment granularity than an editor, sometimes simply cannot equal post processing (for critical work) but is typically quite suitable for non critical work by users who just won't see nor care about the differences. Ansel Adams would never have settled for in camera adjustments, but that is why he is an icon in American Photography too.

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

Wow, why can't it be simple like film was?
You send in your film for proccessing, get your 4x6's and they are sharp. Done. Then order enlargements
With digital it's easy to spend so much time nit picking the photo to death.
There's something wrong with this picture.
Someone said about photoshop, "they opened up a can of worms".
My neice says 'It's a guy thing'. Fiddle, fiddle, fiddle.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

kenArchi wrote:

Wow, why can't it be simple like film was? ...
With digital it's easy to spend so much time nit picking the photo to death.
There's something wrong with this picture.

Yep , there is! Film was never like what you say!

Just as with digital if you did no post processing some photos were good enough and some were not. If you did darkroom work you really got the brunt of it. Most negatives never got printed! Think of Ansel Adams who said twelve good photos in a year was a reasonable crop.