Smart sharpening action -where do I download?

[Annette_and_co]

Ive tried clicking on the download for the smart sharpen action but it just takes me to a page of lmisc links on a site that says it is undercontruction

Does anyone know what the correct link is?

Oh and in case I dont make sense, Im looking for the one that should go with the links at the bottom of this tutorial

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...art_sharp.shtml

TIA!!

[oakvilleonca]

You can create your own action from the instructions. If you don't want to do that there are lots of sharpening actions at:

http://atncentral.com/download.htm

and at:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/inde...=1&event=search

After I posted this I tried to replicate his action but could not. In the meantime I did find another smart sharpening action that has two processes in one at:

http://www.bardill.net/projects/photoshop/sharpen/

You can stop that action at unsharp mask and adjust to taste. Both work really well.

Let me know if this helps.

[Mark D Segal]

If you can spring for a bit of cash, the very best set of sharpening actions I've ever worked with is PK Sharpener at www.Pixelgenius.com. You may recall Michael rated the product very highly on this site.

[oakvilleonca]

I have it but unless you have a whole lot of time and even more patience there are just way too many permutations and combinations for the amateur photographer. I have also found that certain settings add noise as a byproduct.

Turns out that my favourite is still Focus Magic: clean, simple, no halos or noise.

[Mark D Segal]

I have it but unless you have a whole lot of time and even more patience there are just way too many permutations and combinations for the amateur photographer. I have also found that certain settings add noise as a byproduct.

Turns out that my favourite is still Focus Magic: clean, simple, no halos or noise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121849\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, to each his/her own - but I'll just convey my experience with PK Sharpener: one drills down very quickly to which settings work best for the image one is sharpening - I'm not a professional , I can do this in my sleep by now and it works REAL FAST. I don't know what kind of "noise" certain settings produce, but you won't get noise with *correct* settings for your image. And I hope you are talking about noise visible in prints, rather than what may appear to be artifacts in the monitor image - but aren't in print. And if you are referring to the monitor image, I hope you are viewing it at magnifications of 25, 50 or 100%, as anything in-between gives you an aliased image which falsifies your impression of the sharpening effect.

As for Focus Magic, I read about this program in Ctein's book on digital restoriation. I had a mildly out-of-focus image to correct this afternoon, so I downloaded FocusMagic, installed it, and tested it on this image using a reasonable range of the two controls. The only way it did a better job than PK Sharpener resulted in the creation of undesirable sharpening halos. I'll need to test it with more images, but so far I would say - yes it works, but I have provisional reservations.

[Christopher]

PK Sharpener is nice, but on some images I really prefer EasyS (Plus) Sharpening Toolkit. Very good results and easy to use. You even can try it.  http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_66/essay.html

[Mark D Segal]

Christopher, thanks for the suggestion. Before I download and test yet another sharpener, I'm interested to hear from you specifically what kind of images benefit more from EasyS Plus compared with PK Sharpener, and in what ways. As you know, PK Sharpener has a huge amount of adjustability, undoubtedly designed to deal with just about anything that one would throw at it. So the second question I would put to you is whether for the same images you find sharpen *preferable* using EasyS Plus, did you try a whole range of settings in PK Sharpener and found NONE of them preferable, and what are your quality evaluation criteria for deciding what is *preferable*?

[charleski]

Before I download and test yet another sharpener

Have you taken a look at the new sharpening options in ACR4.1? It's still very new, but I've been very impressed by the results. Comparing it to PK (which I've used for a couple of years), the main problem is the lack of fully-editable masking (though you can dial-in a global edge-mask), and you need to adjust the detail slider correctly to avoid obvious haloes. But it does seem to avoid the slightly 'processed' look that PK sometimes imparts.

One technique I've been trying is to mix both ACR and PK sharpening (ACR for source sharpening, PK for content). Getting the mix right is tricky (the ACR detail slider needs to be kept low), so it's only really useful on prints on which you can spend some time, but this seems to avoid the artefacts that both techniques can produce in isolation.

[Annette_and_co]

Thank you all for your replies and sorry I havent replied sooner. (gotta love the flu season - sigh)

Ill check them all out when I get a chance! Thanks again!

[Mark D Segal]

Have you taken a look at the new sharpening options in ACR4.1? It's still very new, but I've been very impressed by the results. Comparing it to PK (which I've used for a couple of years), the main problem is the lack of fully-editable masking (though you can dial-in a global edge-mask), and you need to adjust the detail slider correctly to avoid obvious haloes. But it does seem to avoid the slightly 'processed' look that PK sometimes imparts.

One technique I've been trying is to mix both ACR and PK sharpening (ACR for source sharpening, PK for content). Getting the mix right is tricky (the ACR detail slider needs to be kept low), so it's only really useful on prints on which you can spend some time, but this seems to avoid the artefacts that both techniques can produce in isolation.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122062\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know what you mean by the "slightly processed" look of PK, but with all the control available in that suite, any "look" I've detected can be dealt with rather easily. I don't see the point of replacing it with something less adaptable, so I shall continue to avoid sharpening my raw files until they are rendered.

[charleski]

I don't know what you mean by the "slightly processed" look of PK

I've found I need to tweak the masks on the PK sharpening layers quite a bit to avoid it sharpening out-of-focus areas, which obviously destroys the bokeh.

[Mark D Segal]

I've found I need to tweak the masks on the PK sharpening layers quite a bit to avoid it sharpening out-of-focus areas, which obviously destroys the bokeh.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122760\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Charleski, what do you expect? A sharpener is a sharpener - it *sharpens* the image. It doesn't have a mind of its own to know which areas you want sharpened and which you don't. All of them (with the possible exception of Asiva which has a unique selection approach governed by H,S, L) work the entire image to the strength you specify unless you sharpen selectively; the wonderful thing about PK Sharpener is the flexibility it gives us with those layers and masks to sharpen selectively.

[charleski]

Charleski, what do you expect? A sharpener is a sharpener - it *sharpens* the image. It doesn't have a mind of its own to know which areas you want sharpened and which you don't. All of them (with the possible exception of Asiva which has a unique selection approach governed by H,S, L) work the entire image to the strength you specify unless you sharpen selectively; the wonderful thing about PK Sharpener is the flexibility it gives us with those layers and masks to sharpen selectively.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122767\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I really suggest you take a look at the new sharpening controls in ACR 4.1. (You are, I hope, aware that sharpening has changed considerably in 4.1.) The masking can be set quickly with instant feedback. To get good results from PK you need to use the Expert option and then go into both contour layer masks to adjust the levels properly (dancing back in the history if you get it wrong) before you even start to decide on fade amounts or selective sharpening.

Yes, as I said before, having a fully-editable mask for ACR's sharpening would be ideal, but the current state offers a good trade-off considering the code-burden that would probably impose.

I'm not saying PK isn't good, I've used it for a long time. I'm just saying it's not the Holy Grail. If you have CS3 you have access to a range of different sharpening options built right into the program, and the new sharpening system in ACR 4.1, to my eye, delivers superior results.

[digitaldog]

I really suggest you take a look at the new sharpening controls in ACR 4.1. (You are, I hope, aware that sharpening has changed considerably in 4.1.)

It IS much improved but keep in mind this is only capture sharpening and its expecting you to apply this visually. There's a lot to be said for not sharpening visually although for capture sharpening, its less likely you'll hose the data compared to output sharpening.

[Mark D Segal]

It IS much improved but keep in mind this is only capture sharpening and its expecting you to apply this visually. There's a lot to be said for not sharpening visually although for capture sharpening, its less likely you'll hose the data compared to output sharpening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew, what makes me hesitate about Sharpening in 4.1 is that once you've done it and rendered the image, it's "baked-in", so you can't reverse it unless you go back to the raw file and start over. But you often don't know you want to start over until the image has progressed down the road. At least using PK on a rendered image the layers can be preserved until you're sure what you've done is not going to be reversed, then you can merge visible to economize the MBs. Especially if the sharpening in 4.1 doesn't add much value compared with judicious use of PK Capture Sharpen I don't see the advantage.

[charleski]

It IS much improved but keep in mind this is only capture sharpening and its expecting you to apply this visually. There's a lot to be said for not sharpening visually although for capture sharpening, its less likely you'll hose the data compared to output sharpening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely correct, of course. For a long time I just applied PK Capture sharpening at the relevant content frequency and immediately flattened the image. Unfortunately I had a bit of a shock on trying to enlarge, discovering a granularity in out-of-focus areas that should have been left alone. It took a while to discover that the culprit lay in the sharpening masks allowing through just enough accentuated noise (even at ISO 200) to be visible when approaching enlargement limits. Manual adjustment of the masks corrected much of the issue. The PK contour masks seem to lock their black level at around 50/255, meaning that all parts of the image receive at least some sharpening.

Unfortunately no algorithm is properly able to distinguish between areas which are out-of-focus and areas that are in-focus but have low detail frequencies. This isn't PixelGenius' fault. Because of this, a visual 'sanity check' remains a good idea, especially when dealing which images in which the quality of the out-of-focus areas is of importance. This is why I'm loving the masking feature in 4.1, press the Alt key, twiddle the slider, and there it is .

[Mark D Segal]

Absolutely correct, of course. For a long time I just applied PK Capture sharpening at the relevant content frequency and immediately flattened the image. Unfortunately I had a bit of a shock on trying to enlarge, discovering a granularity in out-of-focus areas that should have been left alone. It took a while to discover that the culprit lay in the sharpening masks allowing through just enough accentuated noise (even at ISO 200) to be visible when approaching enlargement limits. Manual adjustment of the masks corrected much of the issue. The PK contour masks seem to lock their black level at around 50/255, meaning that all parts of the image receive at least some sharpening.

Unfortunately no algorithm is properly able to distinguish between areas which are out-of-focus and areas that are in-focus but have low detail frequencies. This isn't PixelGenius' fault. Because of this, a visual 'sanity check' remains a good idea, especially when dealing which images in which the quality of the out-of-focus areas is of importance. This is why I'm loving the masking feature in 4.1, press the Alt key, twiddle the slider, and there it is .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123018\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The "culprit" may not be the sharpening masks, but the possibility that you did not use a noise reducer before sharpening. I am asking about this, because it  happened a couple of years ago to me too. ISO 200 on many digital cameras is enough to generate just enough barely visible noise to be accentuated in sharpening. I did discuss this matter with the late Bruce Fraser at the time (the granularity in my case showed up more on the monitor than in the print, but as what seemed to be minute white speckles). Bruce agreed that noise was probably a good part of the explanation and that a mild dose of a good noise reducer would help. It did - immensely, without sacrificing necessary detail. It can be applied on a layer and masked in or out very selectively. Then one has no fear using one's favorite sharpener.

[charleski]

Since I'm:
a ) anal
b ) worried that I'm talking rubbish
c ) recklessly indifferent of being charged with egregious Pixel Peeping
I prepared the following crops using different sharpening.

Each was prepared from a fresh conversion of the original RAW file using ACR 4.1. All settings remained the same throughout except for sharpening. For the PK-sharpened versions the sharpening settings in ACR were set to the far left (Amount:0, Radius:0.5, Detail:0, Masking:0), which should mean that ACR is doing no sharpening at all (or at least I should jolly well hope so). I flattened the image directly after applying the PK Sharpener without altering the default fade amounts (which may not be optimal). The ACR-sharpened versions differed only in the sharpening settings specified.

The aim here is to get the bars in front (which are in-focus) sharp, while the out-of-focus leaves behind remain smooth.

Photokit Capture Sharpener, Digital High-Res Sharpen & Smooth, Medium Edge Sharpen:


Photokit Capture Sharpener Expert, Digital High-Res Sharpen & Smooth, Medium Edge Sharpen. The masks for both light and dark contours were modified by manually adjusting the levels so that the black level was set to 50 (In reality I'd have altered the gamma a bit as well, so this isn't really fair. But for experimental purposes I wanted to alter only one variable at a time.)


ACR 4.1 Sharpen, Amount 50, Radius 0.9, Detail 0, Masking 0


ACR 4.1 Sharpen, Amount 50, Radius 0.9, Detail 0, Masking 100


ACR 4.1 Sharpen, Amount 50, Radius 0.9, Detail 100, Masking 0


ACR 4.1 Sharpen, Amount 50, Radius 0.9, Detail 31, Masking 72


Blow them up and take a look, then post back about how I'm an idiot for worrying about such minor differences (that would set my mind at ease, if not my ego). After I'd saved everything as TIFFs I realised that imageshack autoconverts TIFFS to PNGs, but I hope that doesn't screw things up.

What does this prove? Well it proves that the Canon 28-135 IS lens I used to take the shot has a fair amount of chromatic abberation. It needed a lot of correction in ACR, but DXO cleaned it up almost perfectly, though don't get me started on DXO's 'Lens Blur' sharpening, just turn it off. (These are straight ACR RAW conversions, since I wanted to introduce as few variables as possible.)

Personally, I'd have to say that the final setting is the one I'd go for as a Capture Sharpening pass, though this is biased by other elements in the image that have been cropped out.

[Schewe]

Personally, I'd have to say that the final setting is the one I'd go for as a Capture Sharpening pass, though this is biased by other elements in the image that have been cropped out.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Re: ACR 4.1 Sharpen, Amount 50, Radius 0.9, Detail 31, Masking 72

I think your amount might be a bit high...but it's real tough to be able to see what's happening to micro detail on a 100% crop that's been saved as a png (or a jpg for that matter).

At the moment, there's a disconnect between viewing sharpening at 100%, 200% and then trying to determine amounts based upon being zoomed out since CR only previews (does the sharpening) on 1:1 or above...we're talking about that...

But...have you made a print?

[Wolfman]

It IS much improved but keep in mind this is only capture sharpening and its expecting you to apply this visually. There's a lot to be said for not sharpening visually although for capture sharpening, its less likely you'll hose the data compared to output sharpening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You could do very mild sharpening in ACR4.1 and then save your image as a tiff or photoshop file and make a duplicate when final sharpening is ready to be applied, open the duplicate tiff in ACR again and apply final sharpening to taste and open the image and save as a final.