Bill_de Loc: US

Are you saying that people may look at a picture and only think it is sharp because they didn't know how it was processed?

--

RRS Loc: Not sure

Ron, I have been playing with this and I do like the final result a lot better then what I have been doing so far with the high pass filter. If you do an image as I have done, standing alone it may look pretty good until the same image is redone and looked at along side the first. Will play with this some more.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

You need to sharpen to print large , going from native size from camera ,to 30 x40 and beyond you need to sharpen , preferably with on 1 genuine fractals .......

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

It is better to remain silent and be thought ignorant than to speak up and remove all doubt.

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

I've tried many different sharpening programs and found, using Photoshop: Filter, Sharpen, Shake reduction, works the easiest and best for me.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Jacque,

“Raw needs no sharpening?”

Sorry, Jacque, I have to dispute you on this one.

Unless you are happy with full-frame prints no larger than 8x10, it pays to realize that ANY AND EVERY image captured on a pixelated sensor benefits from some degree of sharpening!

Every photosite (pixel) delivers an average of the tones that fell within its purview.
There will always be a degree of enlargement when “softness” becomes apparent. With some sharpening, it then takes more enlargement to get to that noticeably “soft” point.

Sharpening is merely the process of enhancing, very locally, the inadequate contrast of an incipient detail edge; so, sharpening itself is but a subtle illusion.

Your formulaic approach to “...the softness you crave...” by using increased “Clarity” simply increases mid-tonal contrast , a classic “false sharpening” approach that merely increases contrast by reducing the mid-range tonal spectrum to give the cheap, coarse illusion of sharpening. The only sharpening worth the effort is that which emphasizes edge accentuation or deconvolutional aggregation of detail data points within the environment of the otherwise intact local tonal spectrum.

The number of pixels affected on both sides of the sharpened line (“Radius”), the contrast of the dark and bright halos on opposed sides of the sharpened line (“Detail”), and the degree to which sharpening is global or limited to only the strongest edges (“Masking”), and the degree of strength of each of the first three (“Amount”) are the sharpening controls of Adobe Camera Raw. One would do well to learn their independent effects and how to use them in concert. “Smart Sharpen” and “Shake Repair” are the deconvolutional sharpeners it pays to learn as well.

The classic work on the topic is “Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom” (second ed.) written in 2010 by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.

Sensor megapixels have increased, and the sharpening algorithms for edge sharpening and deconvolutional sharpening have improved, but the basic principles of sharpening digital images have not changed since Fraser and Schewe wrote their book.

Schewe’s more recent books also treat the subject well.

Dave

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

All digital images need to be sharpened. I do it in three separate stages. A little in camera. Capture One default raw sharpening and then a final edge sharpen using frequency separation. The amount depends on the size of the finished print.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

Great response! I am reading Jeff's latest two books now: The "Digital Negative" and "The Digital Print." I highly recommend them.

coj Loc: NJ, USA

So, for those of us not using PS or LR?

RRS Loc: Not sure

Well if you shoot Canon then there's DPP 4, don't have any idea for Nikon. There's also DxO and several others.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

I suggest that you read The book by Fraser and Schewe, and compare the controls offered in ACR with those offered by the processor you are using.

The most simple edge sharpeners appear to use “amount” and “Radius”. The next refinement is usually one approaching “Detail”. There may be others that offer something like “Masking”...but I don’t who other than ACR offers that particular function.

There are, of course, a variety of plug-ins with a one-slider-fits-all- needs sharpening approach. The simplest appear based on “Radius”.

Others offer variations on the unsharp mask technique, the results of which are related primarily to controlling the effects of “radius” and of “detail” in ACR.

in PS the deconvolutional sharpeners are “Smart Sharpen” and “Shake repair”. I am told that other processors offer similar decon.sharpeners, but I’ve no experience with them.

Sorry I can’t be more help.

Dave

Rongnongno Loc: FL

In PS CC this is a level adjustment layer.

You can also use Ctl-L on an existing bitmap layer in order to adjust (this works on the active layer or its mask. if any).

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

[quote=Rongnongno]Either your image is in focus or it is not.

This may be among the most interesting threads I so far come across. There are techniques described I commonly use, and others I've never considered or even heard of, but that I'm definitely going to check out. Only problem I have is in the initial premise (stated above). Apart from intentionally shooting something (or some portion of an image) out of focus --more a DOF issue than anything else--, who in the world thinks they are going to make anything obviously OOF appear as if its anything except OOF, sharpening or local contrast or 13 layers of Zen in Lightroom or otherwise? Some tyro?

Like I said, though, some really good stuff here. Thanks!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Almost any photo edit software can sharpen any file format it can read in - gimp, for example, has 'sharpen' and 'unsharp mask' "filters".

Angmo

Well... using Hyperfocal action with depth of field, it can still be necessary to apply sharpening to get something razor sharp as necessary.