Interpolation method

[Pete Berry]

That is interesting. Never heard the term before.Reading about it now
Pete, do you put the Detail slider at 100 for all images, regardless?
Please link me to some so I can just see what type of photography (if you dont mind)

I was just now testing the sliders on an image that has both a finely textured wall and some smooth blue sky (with white clouds).
I found that when the Detail slider was at 100% there were 'artifacts' of some kind visible around the edge between puffy clouds and blue sky, so I brought it back down to 50.
I can also leave Detail at 100 and bring Amount down to get rid of artifacts, but then I lose the fine texture on the wall too

I forgot to include the very important "Masking" setting in ACR's sharpening module. It reduces the sharpening in less detailed/smooth areas, and my default setting is pretty high at 60, but higher as ISO/noise increases.

Also, looking at 100% after interpolation from 16MP to ~ 38MP (15x20 @ 360ppi) is not very useful IMO, and a 50% view gives a much more realistic appraisal of print IQ, which will be quite equivalent to the size at 25% on my 24" 1080HD monitor.

Pete

[FrankG]

I'm not sure if it's bad workflow practice but I like to do the Masking slider first so that only the unmasked areas are affected by subsequently moving the other sliders.
Well, actually some Luminance noise (about 20) reduction first

Do you have the Detail slider at 100  for All images, regardless of content?

[Pete Berry]

I'm not sure if it's bad workflow practice but I like to do the Masking slider first so that only the unmasked areas are affected by subsequently moving the other sliders.
Well, actually some Luminance noise (about 20) reduction first

Do you have the Detail slider at 100  for All images, regardless of content?

Yes, that shifts the gears to the De-convolutional mode,  and I vary mainly the Amount slider and Masking.

Pete

[FrankG]

Awesome.
All this info really kicks me off to a good start.
Thanks folks.

Just one last thing - I read that Jeff Schewe considers Luninance slider the 5th capture sharpening slider and says that All raw images need Some luminance noise reduction.

Firstly, do you concur? And secondly, would you say that somewhere between 10 & 30 would be an average starting point for M43 raw files shot at 400 or less iso ?

[Schewe]

Just one last thing - I read that Jeff Schewe considers Luninance slider the 5th capture sharpening slider and says that All raw images need Some luminance noise reduction.

Firstly, do you concur? And secondly, would you say that somewhere between 10 & 30 would be an average starting point for M43 raw files shot at 400 or less iso ?

Yes, I concur :~)

You need to evaluate luminance noise reduction if you've done any lightening to the raw image because doing so makes the noise more visible. This is true even if you shoot at ISO 100. Also, if you are doing any additional sharpening over default, particularly the Detail slider, that will also increase the appearance of noise.

So, ask your self, are you willing to do a bit more work to get a better image? BTW, can't tell what numbers to use because it all depends on the sensor noise signature and the ISO. Evaluate the noise at least at a 200% zoom to see what the noise reduction is doing. (I often view at 400%) this isn't about how much the noise will look like in the final output, this is just to evaluate what the reduction is doing. If working on high ISO, I'll also often add back a bit of Grain effect to mitigate the synthetic look of noise reduction.

[FrankG]

"additional sharpening over default, particularly the Detail slider"

Yes, because I am learning, from your writings, via a post in this thread, to go 100 on Detail

"are you willing to do a bit more work to get a better image?"
Yes, definitely.
Do you mean to spend more time correcting noise if I've lightened the image, and/or moved the Detail slider to 100?

I've always found that noise reduction makes the image kinda mushy. Counter to the sharpening. Would it not be better to bring down the Detail rather than adding Luminance noise slider?If not then what kind of grain slider  numbers would bring it back to a 'normal' look - or is that just a personal taste call when viewing at 100%

[digitaldog]

I'm confused.  When did ACR get a print output module?  Shouldn't you be talking about LR and Photoshop?

Correct, no print module. First, we're talking about using either ACR or LR to interpolate above the native (max) resolution which both can do. In terms of sharpening, I'm referring only to capture sharpening which of course both provide. Prior to that upsized rendering.

[Pete Berry]

Awesome.
All this info really kicks me off to a good start.
Thanks folks.

Just one last thing - I read that Jeff Schewe considers Luninance slider the 5th capture sharpening slider and says that All raw images need Some luminance noise reduction.

Firstly, do you concur? And secondly, would you say that somewhere between 10 & 30 would be an average starting point for M43 raw files shot at 400 or less iso ?

First, while I use lum. NR in ACR fairly often, I don't see it as necessary in most well-exposed low-ISO m4/3 16MP images resampled up to 28MP in ACR for my 15x20 (300PPI) prints on the Canon iPF5100. Even boosting shadows by 50% or so, with moderate use of the Claity slider to 25-30%.

Looking at 100% shows me all I need to see for sharpening and NR effect, and by just going down to 66% the difference is striking. Granted, the native 16MP RAW image can profit from 200% viewing during adjustments.

Pete

[FrankG]

I have been testing this ACR sharpening procedure on many images since you all kindly provided an explanation and method. Usually around A 40, R 1, D 100. M 30 to 60.

But on many of them, albeit not all of them, I find that there is noise/artifacts (I don't know how to term the objectionable pattern/effect). And this is prior to up-sampling the size in ACR.
Particularly in dark areas, like a black person's skin.

Even though I have Not lightened the image, raised the Exposure or the Shadows, in the ACR sliders. Which leads me to think they're properly captured. Most images are made at 200 iso on a M4/3 sensor.
Is that just the nature of the beast or is my technique lacking.

When I use the Luminance NR slider (the col is at 25 by default) I have to take it up to around or over 25 to make the 'uglies' disappear. But I'm left with a soft pic so I tend to forget about NR ad live with it.
Can I improve my technique or am I dealing with the limitations of a small sensor (M4/3).

[Pete Berry]

I have been testing this ACR sharpening procedure on many images since you all kindly provided an explanation and method. Usually around A 40, R 1, D 100. M 30 to 60.

But on many of them, albeit not all of them, I find that there is noise/artifacts (I don't know how to term the objectionable pattern/effect). And this is prior to up-sampling the size in ACR.
Particularly in dark areas, like a black person's skin.

Even though I have Not lightened the image, raised the Exposure or the Shadows, in the ACR sliders. Which leads me to think they're properly captured. Most images are made at 200 iso on a M4/3 sensor.
Is that just the nature of the beast or is my technique lacking.

When I use the Luminance NR slider (the col is at 25 by default) I have to take it up to around or over 25 to make the 'uglies' disappear. But I'm left with a soft pic so I tend to forget about NR ad live with it.
Can I improve my technique or am I dealing with the limitations of a small sensor (M4/3).

Frank, some screen captures @100% in ACR with settings included would be helpful for further insight. That said, I push Masking to higher levels, with my default set at 60. I will also use the NR Detail slider liberally to decrease softness. Which m4/3 camera body are you using?

Pete

[FrankG]

Panasonic GX7 body.

Pushing Detail up to 100 appears to be the culprit?

I will do some scrrenshots with settings late tomorrow. I could even upload a raw file or two to dropbox

[bjanes]

I'm not sure if it's bad workflow practice but I like to do the Masking slider first so that only the unmasked areas are affected by subsequently moving the other sliders.
Well, actually some Luminance noise (about 20) reduction first

The order in which you apply the various sliders is not necessarily the order in which LR/ACR applies the corrections. Various authorities have stated that the order in which you make corrections has little significance since the programs apply the corrections in the optimal order. Perhaps Jeff Schewe can confirm this.

Regards,

Bill

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Pushing Detail up to 100 appears to be the culprit?

Probably. I've almost never been able to go beyond Detail 50-60 without generating horrible artifacts. LightRoom's and ACR's implementation of deconvolution is a bit rough (for reasons of speed I asume). It's miles behind dedicated tools like FocusMagic.

Cheers,
Bart