Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: Mr. Capp on July 10, 2013, 05:20:26 pm

Title: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Mr. Capp on July 10, 2013, 05:20:26 pm
Does anyone know what are the %'s amount, radius, etc for each size in low standard or high. And how is based on image size or what?
I used to print all in cs5 and printing 17x22 I usually sharpened about 500-700 percent but now printing in lightroom at that size, even on high it's no where near correct on may images. I then Have to go in and change my capture sharpening so I get a better print.

Is there any preview? Why make us print blindly in the most crucial step?

I love lightroom (4.3) but there are some things that make me go wha?

-Michael
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: digitaldog on July 10, 2013, 05:50:20 pm
Is there any preview? Why make us print blindly in the most crucial step?

The output sharpening is based on this work of Bruce Fraser: http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask

As to why you are not shown this preview, it's not even close to WYSIWYG and there's no reason to show you an incorrect preview of something you can't see on-screen.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 10, 2013, 09:54:56 pm
Does anyone know what are the %'s amount, radius, etc for each size in low standard or high.

Yep...I do. I worked with the LR engineers to incorporate PhotoKit Sharpener's logic into the print module. But, you really don't want to know what's under the hood (the magic numbers) for two reasons; first, it's proprietary information and two, it wouldn't matter because you can't really change them other than high, low and standard and matte or glossy media.

As for why no preview? You can't judge the output sharpening for print on a display. At 100% zoom the image will be 3-4x the printed size. If you zoom out to view the image at or near the print size, you're looking at image detail at 1/3 to 1/4 the resolution of the final print.

The only way to judge output sharpening is to, well, make a print...which is what Bruce did for PKS and the LR engineers and I did for LR's output sharpening....

As to how to look at low, standard and high, if you've not optimized your raw file, you'll prolly need to use high. If you tend to over sharpen in LR, you'll prolly need to use low. If you know what you're doing, standard should be fine. If you sharpen in Photoshop, you'll want to turn it off.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Mr. Capp on July 10, 2013, 10:07:53 pm
Jeff,
 Thank you so much. I loved your real world sharpening book. I felt I got lost a bit switching to full time printing in LR vs. PS.
I guess my main issue is now in capture sharpening. I use the standard 25/1.0/25/0 which for the most part has worked for me
pretty well. I guess this is the only place to do global sharpening other than output? So if high output isn't enough just up the amount
of capture?

Thanks again

-Michael 
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 10, 2013, 10:16:46 pm
I use the standard 25/1.0/25/0 which for the most part has worked for me pretty well.

It's the default for a reason...it's a safe, conservative starting point but far from optimal. If you are not fine tuning the capture sharpening in the Detail panel (including luminance noise reduction) you are leaving image quality on the table. As a starting point you might want to try the two LR presets for sharpening found in the Lightroom General Presets and called Sharpen-Faces and Sharpen Scenic. BTW, I formulated those for the LR team and they are better than the "Default" but I still think you really need to learn how to use the Detail panel to get the best out of your image detail. Since you have the book, go re-read LR sharpening and do some playing. I suspect you'll be able to improve you image detail and thus end up with better prints.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Mr. Capp on July 10, 2013, 10:21:01 pm
you're right, back to the book for me.
thanks again....
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 11, 2013, 04:03:41 am
Does anyone know what are the %'s amount, radius, etc for each size in low standard or high. And how is based on image size or what?
I used to print all in cs5 and printing 17x22 I usually sharpened about 500-700 percent but now printing in lightroom at that size, even on high it's no where near correct on may images. I then Have to go in and change my capture sharpening so I get a better print.

Hi Michael,

There are a lot of misconceptions about the proper use of the Capture sharpening dialog in Lightroom, and to a certain extend in how to use the Detail/Sharpening dialog in ACR and other Raw converters.

Capture sharpening is supposed to be a part of the Raw conversion process, but in Lightroom the settings used will be also the basis for other (creative) sharpening activities. That's why people are tempted to combine Capture Sharpening and Creative sharpening into a single operation, which is sub-optimal, as you are experiencing.

Capture sharpening is supposed to be about restoring from Capture losses, which are a given for a certain image and they are the result of the equipment and lens/focus settings used, in fact regardless of subject matter. It is not something that changes with the subject, and not something that changes with the output size requirements. It is supposed to be only about Capture.

I've analyzed Capture Sharpening (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68089.msg538932#msg538932) and found that the required settings are constant. It's always the same when optimally focused, and it' s only dependent on the lens quality (residual aberrations) and aperture used (reduction of some of the lens aberrations and introduced diffraction with narrower apertures) in combination with the sensor used (mostly sensel pitch related). The measurable(!) amount of Capture blur, is only dependent on those factors, not image content, and not output size. And because it is measurable, it can also be reversed to a large extend, with the Capture sharpening dialog or other/better tools.

Once we have optimized the technical qualities of our Captured image, we can optimize it for other, more creative, aspects (noise, color, exposure, local contrast and detail, local retouch, etc.). And after we have done that, we can address the specific requirements for the output modalities for which the image can be repurposed.

So, the answer to your question, about which settings to use in the Detail/Capture sharpening dialog, is; it depends on your image capture quality, and nothing else. Depending on the camera/lens and aperture settings you used, it should be pretty much always the same, every time you used those settings for that lens/camera combination.

Unfortunately, Lightroom lures people into mixing Capture sharpening and Creative sharpening into one operation, which is convenient but sub-optimal, in particular it's sub-optimal for those who produce large format output. For down-sampled output most of the sharpening and detail will be lost anyway, together with the majority of originally captured pixels. And given the supplied presets for subject matter sharpening, which has nothing to do with Capture sharpening, it should be obvious that Lightroom is not designed for convenient production of large format output.

I'm not saying that Lightroom cannot be used for large format output, but that one must take care to not be lured into producing sub-optimal results. For that, you'll have to separate and optimize Capture sharpening, and Creative adjustments like tone-curve, Clarity, and detail enhancement, and finally resampling for output and output sharpening at that output size, for the specific output medium and viewing conditions used.

The above of course only applies if you want the best output quality.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: PhotoEcosse on July 11, 2013, 04:10:51 am
Quote
Yep...I do. I worked with the LR engineers to incorporate PhotoKit Sharpener's logic into the print module. But, you really don't want to know what's under the hood (the magic numbers) for two reasons; first, it's proprietary information and two, it wouldn't matter because you can't really change them other than high, low and standard and matte or glossy media.

As for why no preview? You can't judge the output sharpening for print on a display. At 100% zoom the image will be 3-4x the printed size. If you zoom out to view the image at or near the print size, you're looking at image detail at 1/3 to 1/4 the resolution of the final print.

The only way to judge output sharpening is to, well, make a print...which is what Bruce did for PKS and the LR engineers and I did for LR's output sharpening....

As to how to look at low, standard and high, if you've not optimized your raw file, you'll prolly need to use high. If you tend to over sharpen in LR, you'll prolly need to use low. If you know what you're doing, standard should be fine. If you sharpen in Photoshop, you'll want to turn it off.

It's the default for a reason...it's a safe, conservative starting point but far from optimal. If you are not fine tuning the capture sharpening in the Detail panel (including luminance noise reduction) you are leaving image quality on the table. As a starting point you might want to try the two LR presets for sharpening found in the Lightroom General Presets and called Sharpen-Faces and Sharpen Scenic. BTW, I formulated those for the LR team and they are better than the "Default" but I still think you really need to learn how to use the Detail panel to get the best out of your image detail. Since you have the book, go re-read LR sharpening and do some playing. I suspect you'll be able to improve you image detail and thus end up with better prints.

Two of the most useful posts I have read on Lula. Thanks Jeff.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Tony Jay on July 11, 2013, 04:51:06 am
Two of the most useful posts I have read on Lula. Thanks Jeff.

Well, we don't love Jeff for nothing you know.
Great guy, but he also knows a little about digital imaging on the side!

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Mr. Capp on July 11, 2013, 05:47:06 am
Bart,
You have really explicated my initial confusion and things are much clearer to me. Now I just need to synthesize between Jeff and you and I should be golden!
-M
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 11, 2013, 06:21:05 am
Bart,
You have really explicated my initial confusion and things are much clearer to me. Now I just need to synthesize between Jeff and you and I should be golden!

Michael,

You're welcome. When you have a specific camera/lens/aperture combination, it should be possible to find an optimal Capture sharpening setting. While not ideal, one might even be able to determine that from an unsharpened crop that has some slanted edge transitions in it.

For large format output there are other recommendations that can be given for that stage of the process. Any haloing that is caused by Capture sharpening, will (literally) become an even bigger issue when enlarged.

BTW, a default Radius of 1.0 may be (not conservative but) quite wrong for a good lens that's used at a not too narrow aperture. The 'Detail' slider usually gives much better results at 50 or more, but its algorithm does create odd artifacts (especially with noisy images) if pushed too far (which can explain its modest default). The 'Masking' parameter is useful to reduce noise in featureless areas like sky. The required 'Amount' depends on all the other parameters (including noise reduction), which makes it a very strange choice as first parameter in the dialog. What were they thinking/drinking when they designed that ...?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 11, 2013, 01:05:39 pm
What were they thinking/drinking when they designed that ...?

You'll have to ask Thomas Knoll that question. I think radius should be the first parameter set and amount the last after setting detail, masking and luminance noise reduction. But since it's an iterative process, I'm not sure the order is all that important.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 11, 2013, 02:07:14 pm
Hi,

On the other hand, I sometimes set a large radius and go over the other controls to maximise sharpness and minimise halos. Once that is done I reduce amount. That said I mostly use presets.

Other than that I agree wit Jeff on the order of things to touch.

Best regards
Erik

You'll have to ask Thomas Knoll that question. I think radius should be the first parameter set and amount the last after setting detail, masking and luminance noise reduction. But since it's an iterative process, I'm not sure the order is all that important.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: tommm on July 12, 2013, 04:22:59 am
Hi Bart,

Completely agree with your summary of sharpening in Lightroom. It's a great shame they didn't follow Bruce Fraser's separation of Capture and Creative sharpening.

What work around do you use? I've tried using the main dialogue box for capture and then the brush for creative but it doesn't work that well as you can't adjust any parameters (radius, detail, amount) separately, so I have just resigned to doing capture and creative in one step.

Wouldn't it be great (given that capture sharpening should be based solely on camera, lens and aperture, and not content, output size, etc) if a future version of Lightroom implemented capture sharpening along the lines of lens profiles? Where the appropriate capture sharpening had been calculated and was applied automatically (tweakable by user as with lens profiles), leaving us to get on with creative sharpening?

Also, whilst I understand Jeff's point regarding output sharpening settings, I would still much rather the amount was more fine tunable, say a single slider from very low to very high.

Don't get me wrong I think Lightroom is fantastic, and the sharpening algorithm also, but definitely feel the sharpening workflow is it's weakest area.

Cheers,

Tom
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 12, 2013, 04:43:16 am
It's a great shame they didn't follow Bruce Fraser's separation of Capture and Creative sharpening.

Actually, we did...everything in LR's sharpening both capture, creative and output sharpening was implemented in accordance to Bruce's workflow. This was done at the behest of Thomas Knoll because Thomas respected Bruce's philosophies...

It would be useful if you fully understood what the Detail panel and local sharpening does in relationship to each other...do you?
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Tony Jay on July 12, 2013, 05:13:34 am
...but definitely feel the sharpening workflow is it's weakest area.

You have got to be kidding me!!!
Seriously Tom, learn how Lightroom works first.
Currently we have global capture sharpening, regional creative sharpening, and a very powerful output sharpening ability in Lightroom.
The fact that the controls are actually easy to use does not, in any way, detract from their power or their utility.

Kudos to Schewe and the Lightroom team in the implementation of the sharpening tools we currently have.

Tony Jay
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 06:09:37 am
Hi Bart,

Completely agree with your summary of sharpening in Lightroom. It's a great shame they didn't follow Bruce Fraser's separation of Capture and Creative sharpening.

What work around do you use? I've tried using the main dialogue box for capture and then the brush for creative but it doesn't work that well as you can't adjust any parameters (radius, detail, amount) separately, so I have just resigned to doing capture and creative in one step.

Hi Tom,

That's a big part of the issue. The Capture sharpening task can be achieved with the Detail panel to some level of success, but then one is kind of stuck with those settings for the subsequent (-100 to +100) Creative sharpening with the adjustment brush. All one can basically do is add a bit more of the same, or reduce it from other areas that got too much. There are basically no separate (e.g. Radius or type of sharpening) controls for that adjustment phase, other than amount.

We are more or less forced to not use the Detail dialog for Capture sharpening, but abuse it for some sort of combined Capture+Creative sharpening, which will need to be adjusted when we change output size (to reduce the radius induced halos when producing large format output, and increase the radius and reduce the amount for down-sampled output if we want to avoid aliasing artifacts). This goes entirely against the concept of parametric editing, because we constantly are re-doing a number of the Raw conversion settings, we might as well have produced different output file sizes and be done with it. The only benefit is that the parametric editing is reversible without cumulated loss of quality, but then a Raw conversion from a variant in e.g. ACR is also reversible and lossless.

My normal workflow in LR doesn't use any Sharpening (except for checking image quality) and I toggle the detail panel off for output, and handle it all outside of Lightroom. That immediately reduces the usefulness of Lightroom as an image editing tool, also because the tools that I can then use can produce higher quality than with LR alone.

FocusMagic's deconvolution sharpening is superior to what LR produces, and Topaz Lab's Clarity (and Adjust and Detail) plugin can produce much higher quality and offer much more control than the built-in LR tools (which are not too bad, but not as good either). Photozoom Pro does better upsampling, and ImageMagick does better downsampling. Qimage has superior nesting and management of prior print-jobs, it even has better resampling than Lightroom, and halo free shaarpeening, also after automatic resampling to native printer driver requirements. The downside is that it complicates the workflow, so it would be nice if I could do better sharpening while inside LR. I could in some cases settle for closer to perfect than optimal, and staying in LR for more of the situations.
 
Quote
Wouldn't it be great (given that capture sharpening should be based solely on camera, lens and aperture, and not content, output size, etc) if a future version of Lightroom implemented capture sharpening along the lines of lens profiles? Where the appropriate capture sharpening had been calculated and was applied automatically (tweakable by user as with lens profiles), leaving us to get on with creative sharpening?

That's exactly what I have been saying. Even creating sensible Capture sharpening defaults based on EXIF data (camera model, lens, and aperture) would already be a huge improvement. Now it's a guessing game, and we humans are generally not very good in guessing the optimal settings without technical assistance. As one of the participants in the thread about my Capture sharpening tool discovered, his shots with a focal length extender indicated requiring something like 2x the normal radius setting, something he would never have guessed without an objective measurement to point it out. It would have been be helpful if the defaults in the sharpening dialog had already suggested that.

It could be seriously enhanced by a new type of visual feedback (based on local spatial frequency analysis) which does a technical evaluation that is quantifiable and repeatable, and allows to also account for defocus we might want to address. It could be hidden when the Advanced mode tickbox is not activated, to spare the less demanding users from having to fathom its use(fulness). The feedback should also warn about the amount of halo that the new settings would create in other parts of the image that do have the best detail. Capture sharpening should be halo free, because the original signal that we try to restore was also halo free, it's as simple as that.

Also a useful addition would be something like what Capture One already offers for a long time, sharpness fall-off correction that allows to improve the corners more (using a larger deconvolution radius) than the center of the image.

Quote
Also, whilst I understand Jeff's point regarding output sharpening settings, I would still much rather the amount was more fine tunable, say a single slider from very low to very high.

Fully agree. Only being able to locally add more, or less, of the same initial Capture sharpening is not adequate for our needs. It helps a bit that we can choose between a few presets for output sharpening, but that doesn't offer much control either. I could probably do much better if I could adjust the settings myself, for my image, and my choice of medium.

Quote
Don't get me wrong I think Lightroom is fantastic, and the sharpening algorithm also, but definitely feel the sharpening workflow is it's weakest area.

Yes, it overall allows to create pretty decent Raw conversions once you have learned to address some of the less appealing characteristics, such as the highlight compression. The fact that the lacking sharpening controls force me to seek solutions outside of LR, is not a clever design. Because once I'm working outside of LR, I find even better quality options for specific workflow phases. Without being forced out, I might even try harder to stay in LR and settle for good enough in more situations where the workflow benefits would be helpful.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 06:16:02 am
Actually, we did...everything in LR's sharpening both capture, creative and output sharpening was implemented in accordance to Bruce's workflow. This was done at the behest of Thomas Knoll because Thomas respected Bruce's philosophies...

Which then begs the question, why can't the Creative sharpening Radius and Method be adjusted when using the adjustment brush ...? Surely, of all people, you should understand how necessary that is for different output sizes?

Quote
It would be useful if you fully understood what the Detail panel and local sharpening does in relationship to each other...do you?

My guess is that you either underestimate Tom's level of understanding, or you hope to intimidate him ... But that's just as much an assumption as yours.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 12, 2013, 06:22:52 am
Which then begs the question, why can't the Creative sharpening Radius and Method be adjusted when using the adjustment brush ...? Surely, of all people, you should understand how necessary that is for different output sizes?

Do you understand the implications of parametric adjustments? If you did you would realize the complexity of changing local control channel parameters...would I like different local adjustment parameters? Yes...do you have explicit use case examples where there is a clear advantage? If you do, bring them forward...Eric and Thomas are always willing to listen if you know how to speak to them.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 12, 2013, 06:25:28 am
My guess is that you either underestimate Tom's level of understanding, or you hope to intimidate him ... But that's just as much an assumption as yours.

Yeah, well, the comment about following Bruce's sharpening workflow is sort of a clue that maybe Tom's level of understanding is a bit lacking...am I wrong? I doubt it...do you?
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 07:33:30 am
Do you understand the implications of parametric adjustments?

Yes Jeff, but thanks for your concern.

Quote
If you did you would realize the complexity of changing local control channel parameters...would I like different local adjustment parameters?

Of course it's complex, that's why the engineers get paid good salaries, to try and solve it. But using the complexity as an excuse also suggests that its functionality is currently sub-optimal, which is indeed what I said earlier.

Quote
Yes...do you have explicit use case examples where there is a clear advantage? If you do, bring them forward...Eric and Thomas are always willing to listen if you know how to speak to them.

I'm a bit surprised that you'd have to ask me for examples if/where Creative sharpening requires even different settings than Capture sharpening. It's one of the main topics of Bruce Fraser's Real World Image Sharpening book, which you co-authored. If Capture sharpening didn't require different settings, then why separate them in the first place.

I fully agree that they require a different approach, in fact they require different methods/algorithms to tackle the issue.

Capture sharpening requires deconvolution sharpening, because the Capture blur is characterized by a somewhat predictable hardware induced Point Spread Function (PSF) that lends itself for deconvolution very well. The common challenge with that approach is in separating signal from noise, and in avoiding ringing/halo artifacts.

Creative 'sharpening' on the other hand has more to do with boosting/attenuating specific spatial frequencies, and adjusting local contrast. That would be more logically approached by a simple USM or High-pass type of spatial domain adjustment, although the modern approaches use more computationally efficient frequency domain adjustments based on Wavelet conversions to address different feature sizes, and Adaptive Bi-lateral filtering to avoid edge halos. Here, also a lot of care must be taken to avoid perceptually unconvincing shifts in color/saturation which can occur when the local brightness levels are changed significantly.

Suggesting that Creative sharpening can be done well by only boosting the local amount of Capture sharpening, is silly. Yes, it's more complex to do in a parametric editor but, no, it is not good enough as it is currently implemented.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. This also reminded me of a quote from a famous inspirational speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ateh7hnEnik): "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard"
-John F. Kennedy, Rice University, Sept. 12, 1962
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on July 12, 2013, 07:54:40 am
Hello,

I wonder if we use the finest detail in the image to determine the radius of the sharpening in the detail-panel, and then, after applying it properly, use the brush with a higher amount of sharpening, does the result come near to the same result as when sharpening the same image in PS with complete different radius / amount using layers. Additionally we could use some halo-suppression by the details-slider.

@Jeff : I remember in one of the Lr videos you did the roundtrip to PS exactly becasue you did the sharpening of the iceberg with different radius.

Robert
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: digitaldog on July 12, 2013, 09:39:26 am
Which then begs the question, why can't the Creative sharpening Radius and Method be adjusted when using the adjustment brush ...?

LR has creative sharpening? I know it has localized sharpening, is that the same (as creative sharpening in PKS)?
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 10:54:26 am
LR has creative sharpening? I know it has localized sharpening, is that the same (as creative sharpening in PKS)?

Hi Andrew,

Actually, we did...everything in LR's sharpening both capture, creative and output sharpening was implemented in accordance to Bruce's workflow.

So, unless Capture and Creative sharpening are folded into one operation (contrary to Bruce's methods), the adjustment brush and Clarity are what it must be.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 11:11:28 am
I wonder if we use the finest detail in the image to determine the radius of the sharpening in the detail-panel, and then, after applying it properly, use the brush with a higher amount of sharpening, does the result come near to the same result as when sharpening the same image in PS with complete different radius / amount using layers.

Hi Robert,

That's the issue, it would not have the same effect. We should indeed use the finest image detail to determine that optimum radius and amount for Capture sharpening. Which leaves the Creative sharpening, for which we only have an adjustment brush available with an amount between -100 and +100. Nothing there indicates that it also somehow changes the radius. That only leaves Clarity to influence the Creative 'sharpening', the impression of sharpness by changing local contrast.

Quote
Additionally we could use some halo-suppression by the details-slider.

That's partially addressed by the Masking control, but that probably would mean that we are using too large a radius already. With the correct Radius for Capture sharpening, and the correct amount, we would not have any halos, only sharpness (which requires deconvolution, which means that the Detail slider must be pulled as far to the right as acceptable).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: tommm on July 12, 2013, 11:40:29 am
Hi Jeff (and Bart),

I do understand a little about sharpening. And yes I also know that you took over writing Real World Image Sharpening after Bruce passed away. I've read Bruce's stance on sharpening and yours and many others. And stemming from Bruce's work most people agree that capture sharpening and creative sharpening should be separate stages in the workflow, with capture sharpening aiming to reverse the effects of hardwear (camera, lens, scanner, etc), whilst creative is content dependent.

You clearly agree with this and have helped implement good sharpening tools in lightroom. However, I (and clearly Bart and probably many others) feel that a truly three stage sharpening workflow would allow even better sharpening. I don't think we're trying to start an arguement but merely point out what we as uses would like to see in future lightoom upgrades.

One example of why more flexible output sharpening would be useful is that as stated by Bruce and others, there is vast difference in how screens currently show an image in terms of sharpness. So for a given image if I sharpen it in lightroom to look good on screen and then pop it open on a different screen it may look over or under sharpened. This means that each individuals on screen "to taste" sharpening, even ignoring there taste, will be different depending on what screen they are using. Therefore having three sizes fits all output sharpening doesn't allow fine tuning for different screens (or tastes or eyesight or viewing conditions, etc).

In an ideal world I would like to be able to do:

a) Capture sharpening based on capture hardwear alone. (with profiles as a starting points ideally)

b) Creative sharpening both globally and locally based on the image "looking correct" on screen for screen based uses.

c) Output sharpening based on output media and size. (with profiles as we have but with a slider for fine tuning, as screens and tastes vary)

I think Bart has made the case more strongly and more technically than I but hopefully you get the idea that we're just trying to advance things rather than just moan!

Cheers,

Tom

Tom
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on July 12, 2013, 12:00:15 pm
[...]
That's partially addressed by the Masking control, but that probably would mean that we are using too large a radius already. With the correct Radius for Capture sharpening, and the correct amount, we would not have any halos, only sharpness (which requires deconvolution, which means that the Detail slider must be pulled as far to the right as acceptable).

Cheers,
Bart

Hallo Bart,

as far as I understood Jeff right, the details slider has two different meanings. When moved to the left side, it works like a halo-supression and when moved to the left, it switches the complete sharpening to deconvolutionmsharpening, which means it doesn't simly increase the contrast, but calculates the funtion which is responsible for the 'unsharpness' and tries to find another function which inverts this process. In easy words, it tries to recreate the sharpness of the object by calculation the things responsible for the unsharpness.

So, when pushing the slider nearly all the way to the left, it suppresses effective halos. In the case you do your creative sharpening with a large amount, you could finetune it this way.

Best wishes

Robert

Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 12:46:36 pm
Hallo Bart,

as far as I understood Jeff right, the details slider has two different meanings. When moved to the left side, it works like a halo-supression and when moved to the left, it switches the complete sharpening to deconvolutionmsharpening, which means it doesn't simly increase the contrast, but calculates the funtion which is responsible for the 'unsharpness' and tries to find another function which inverts this process. In easy words, it tries to recreate the sharpness of the object by calculation the things responsible for the unsharpness.

Hi Robert,

That's not how Eric Chan explained (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg379363#msg379363) the functionality earlier:"...the Detail slider in CR 6 & LR 3 is a blend of sharpening/deblur methods and if you want the deconv-based method then you crank up the Detail slider (even up to 100 if you want the pure deconv-based method). "

So the detail slider effectively sets a blend between different basic sharpening methods, with a more traditional USM type of sharpening at its minimum, and deconvolution sharpening at it's maximum. Both will produce halo/ringing artifacts when set to the wrong radius and/or to too high an Amount.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. In another post by Eric (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg378085#msg378085) he explains how the Detail panel settings carry over to the adjustment brush.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 12, 2013, 01:40:13 pm
Bart,

For once you are wrong. Detail to left invokes halo suppression. You can use a lot amount and you get no halos. I'm pretty sure that both Eric and Jeff has stated this, but you can simply try yourself.

Best regards
Erik

Hi Robert,

That's not how Eric Chan explained (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg379363#msg379363) the functionality earlier:"...the Detail slider in CR 6 & LR 3 is a blend of sharpening/deblur methods and if you want the deconv-based method then you crank up the Detail slider (even up to 100 if you want the pure deconv-based method). "

So the detail slider effectively sets a blend between different basic sharpening methods, with a more traditional USM type of sharpening at its minimum, and deconvolution sharpening at it's maximum. Both will produce halo/ringing artifacts when set to the wrong radius and/or to too high an Amount.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. In another post by Eric (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=45038.msg378085#msg378085) he explains how the Detail panel settings carry over to the adjustment brush.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on July 12, 2013, 01:43:30 pm
Hi Bart,

when you take a look at Jeff's book 'the digital negative' at page 89, he explains that nearly the way I did. Actually I'm waiting for Jeff's ok to give you the excerpts from his book.
( I don't want to be killed by Jeff  :) )

Best wishes

Robert
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 02:26:54 pm
Bart,

For once you are wrong. Detail to left invokes halo suppression. You can use a lot amount and you get no halos. I'm pretty sure that both Eric and Jeff has stated this, but you can simply try yourself.

Hi Erik,

Thanks for that. However, already with the detail slider to 1 or 2, I can apparently produce halo (see attachment). Not that I would ever use the settings as shown, but I'm not so sure that active halo suppression is applied. If there is (maybe it is added  in a later version) then it's restricted to the extreme left of the range, because at 1 or 2 I can already create some. Edit: I've also added a Detail=0 version of the Raw file conversion screen capture.

I've not seen Eric (who should know better than any other poster's anecdotal interpretation) mention the active halo suppression, but I would of course welcome any links to where he might have done so. Maybe there is less of a tendency to the formation of halos due to the choice of algorithm (not USM-like but something else), so it would be interesting to know if it is specifically activated or a welcome by-product.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on July 12, 2013, 02:37:51 pm
Hi Erik,

Thanks for that. However, already with the detail slider to 1 or 2, I can apparently produce halo (see attachment). Not that I would ever use the settings as shown, but I'm not so sure that active halo suppression is applied. If there is, maybe it is added  in a later version, then it's restricted to the extreme left of the range because at 1 or 2 I can already create some.

I've not seen Eric (who should know better than any other poster's anecdotal interpretation) mention the active halo suppression, but I would of course welcome any links to where he might have done so. Maybe there is less of a tendency to the formation of halos due to the choice of algorithm (not USM-like but something else), so it would be interesting to know if it is specifically activated or a welcome by-product.

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,

halo suppresssion does not mean that it removes all halos or prohibit the creation at all, but it suppresses them in a 'special range'.

Robert
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2013, 03:14:47 pm
halo suppresssion does not mean that it removes all halos or prohibit the creation at all, but it suppresses them in a 'special range'.

Hi Robert,

The question then becomes; is it a welcome by-product or an intentional addition to the functionality of the underlying slider algorithms, and in what range does it happen? I would appreciate it if someone can find a reference to a post by Eric Chan that indicates such functionality. Eric is one of the few people who can know and understand what exactly happens under the hood.

That BTW still doesn't mean that a low Detail slider value is useful for Capture sharpening, because only Deconvolution really increases resolution (by restoring the blur components to their original position). Other methods only mimic resolution by boosting edge contrast, which is not the same as real resolution.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 12, 2013, 03:28:19 pm
I would appreciate it if someone can find a reference to a post by Eric Chan that indicates such functionality. Eric is one of the few people who can know and understand what exactly happens under the hood.

The term "halo suppression" comes from Mark Hamburg, the original engineer that wrote the code for the ACR sharpening changes instituted in ACR 4.1. This was before Eric was even on the team. However, Eric has taken over the code from Mark and he's the one that modified the high detail setting moving towards deconvolution sharpening. I'll leave it to Eric to say whether the lower detail settings have been changed...
Title: Re: Lightroom sharpening, some evolutions
Post by: NikoJorj on July 12, 2013, 04:29:49 pm
Wouldn't it be great (given that capture sharpening should be based solely on camera, lens and aperture, and not content, output size, etc) if a future version of Lightroom implemented capture sharpening along the lines of lens profiles? Where the appropriate capture sharpening had been calculated and was applied automatically (tweakable by user as with lens profiles), leaving us to get on with creative sharpening?
Some lens defects are already tackled in a full automatic way in LR (distorsion with ยต4/3 cameras eg), and this could be another good use case.
I'm not even sure if this has to be lens-specific (as DxO seems to do with a blur mapping, giving more sharpening in the edges which can give a strange look if overdone), but it could at least take into account the sensor (AA filter) and aperture (diffraction, plus some generic optical defects?).
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: ButchM on July 12, 2013, 10:18:00 pm
I have had my problems, concerns and direction with Lr development. However, sharpening, both in the Develop module and upon Export ... is something that Adobe got right and is one aspect I have invested little worry over.

Software solutions should simplify our workflow, not complicate it. I think that for the vast majority of images I work with, Lr sharpening gets it right ... even though the options and individual control over the end process may not be as configurable as what we have become accustomed with when using other options. Lightroom sharpening gets it right far more often that it gets it wrong. For me, that's a huge plus in simplifying my duties without sacrificing quality. IMHO that is a huge bonus.

Life as a photographer shouldn't be so complicated. I know we try to take on a structured process where we have infinite possibilities to hone our processing to the "Nth" degree ... but seriously ... does it really need to be that intricate and convoluted in order to achieve our goals? ...
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on July 13, 2013, 02:56:42 am
Hi Bart,

when you take a look at Jeff's book 'the digital negative' at page 89, he explains that nearly the way I did. Actually I'm waiting for Jeff's ok to give you the excerpts from his book.
( I don't want to be killed by Jeff  :) )

Best wishes

Robert



Ok, Jeff allowed :
The digital Negative - page 89
[...] When adjusted towards 0, the Detail slider kicks in a halo supression algorithm,[...].
[...] Moving toward 100, the Detail kicks in a deconvolution based sharpening [...] )

As far as I know Jeff, he has talked over hours with Eric and Thomas prior to writing this.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Schewe on July 13, 2013, 03:05:33 am
As far as I know Jeff, he has talked over hours with Eric and Thomas prior to writing this.

Talked? Not so much...emailed? Yep...(well, ok, I've talked to Eric a lot...Thomas doesn't "talk" much).
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 13, 2013, 05:24:22 am
Hi,

I would say that I am satisfied with what LR has to offer. Now, would I shoot people I perhaps would need more selective tools.

If I need heavy creative sharpening I would go to Photoshop anyway.

Best regards
Erik


Talked? Not so much...emailed? Yep...(well, ok, I've talked to Eric a lot...Thomas doesn't "talk" much).
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 13, 2013, 07:41:08 am
The digital Negative - page 89
[...] When adjusted towards 0, the Detail slider kicks in a halo supression algorithm,[...].

Hi Robert,

I understand what has been written, but based on what we can actually see happening, I remain skeptical.

Quote
As far as I know Jeff, he has talked over hours with Eric and Thomas prior to writing this.

I don't doubt that a lot of info has been exchanged but, as it often happens, that doesn't mean that something couldn't have gotten lost in translation between sender and receiver. It's only human, we tend to filter the incoming info (also based on what we understood of it), and pass on something that's slightly modified (unless we quote verbatim, in context).

Because we didn't partake in the conversations, all we can do is observe the results, and the observation is that halos still exist, hence the skepticism. So, either the halo suppression algorithm isn't 100% effective, or lower amplitude halos are simply the by-product of the chosen algorithm.

Anyway, this potentially distracts from the fact that with the detail slider towards the left, one is basically using a kind of Creative sharpening method (modifying feature and edge contrast), and with the Detail slider towards the right one is using a type of Capture sharpening method (Deconvolution, restoration of resolution).

Also established is that the Detail panel parameters are carried over to the adjustment brush, which only allows to change the amount (also in the negative direction, thus allowing to remove either contrast or sharpness, depending on the detail slider position). It is not possible to use different types of sharpening for Capture or Creative sharpening, we can only use a given blend between them for both. Only changing the amount is not an accurate implementation of Bruce Fraser's intended separation between Capture and Creative sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: NikoJorj on July 16, 2013, 09:03:33 am
with the detail slider towards the left, one is basically using a kind of Creative sharpening method (modifying feature and edge contrast), and with the Detail slider towards the right one is using a type of Capture sharpening method (Deconvolution, restoration of resolution).
Is capture sharpening defined by the mean, as opposed to its goal?
I personally don't mind the theorically less adapted algorithm of detail=0, as, in practice, its much lesser effect on noise can give me an image that I feel closer to the capture that with detail=0 with my noisy cameras. ;)


To get back to the topic core, I'd really like to have a separate tool for creative sharpening too.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 16, 2013, 09:32:55 am
Is capture sharpening defined by the mean, as opposed to its goal?

Hi,

I'm not sure I understand the question. I would think that Capture sharpening is a means to achieve the goal of a better quality file to work on, without the blur that the Capture process inevitably creates, who wouldn't want that?

It also creates a more uniform type of image quality to base the following steps on. Without it, one would need to use different Creative sharpening for each image if they were shot with different lenses and/or apertures. With Capture sharpening one may use much more similar Creative sharpening, perhaps even just presets.

Quote
I personally don't mind the theorically less adapted algorithm of detail=0, as, in practice, its much lesser effect on noise can give me an image that I feel closer to the capture that with detail=0 with my noisy cameras. ;)

Noise reduction has become pretty good over the years. Besides, Noise is not the same as the Detail you can recover with proper Capture sharpening, and noise may look very different if the Capture sharpening was sub-optimal.

Quote
To get back to the topic core, I'd really like to have a separate tool for creative sharpening too.

That seems to be the general consensus.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: NikoJorj on July 16, 2013, 09:39:40 am
I think we do agree!

Besides, Noise is not the same as the Detail you can recover with proper Capture sharpening, and noise may look very different if the Capture sharpening was sub-optimal.
And for that, I prefer the compromise of detail=0 than adding much more noise reduction on the top of detail=100. For things like that, I wish I were living in an ideal world.
Title: Re: Lightroom print sharpening, why so layperson?
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 16, 2013, 09:50:24 am
I think we do agree!
And for that, I prefer the compromise of detail=0 than adding much more noise reduction on the top of detail=100. For things like that, I wish I were living in an ideal world.

I agree that Detail=100 is usually too much, but 50 is a better starting point than the usual default, if the noise is not too bad. I'm a low ISO shooter, so I carry a monopod or tripod around a lot of the time.

Cheers,
Bart