Camera RAW Capture Sharpening

[Ghibby]

Hi All, I'm new to this forum but been an avid reader of the site for a long time and would be lost without my daily fix!  I'm not a pro shooter but have done some work in photography, I work with comparatively modest equipment (EOS 20D with 24-105 F4L IS, 70-200 F4L and a sigma 12-24EX) My main area is Landscape photography.

The reason I joined the forum is to discuss the technical side of ACR 4.1 sharpening and the problems I am having.  Basically what I am seeing is that since using ACR 4.1 to capture sharpen my images they have taken on a more 'processed' look. I have found the finest details in landscape and also small areas of almost flat tone take on a more artificial look, with an almost shimmering effect appearing in localised areas of images. As such they dont respond as well to my intermediate sharpening routine which I use in conjunction with an edge mask.

I have tried all manner of combination, high sharpening with low pixel radius, high, detail slider values as well as low and full masking and no masking.  I feel the main problem is the detail slider which seems to bring out these effects especially when used with a well defined mask.  I am beginning to abandon sharpening in ACR and do all my sharpening in CS3 as I did in when i was using CS2 and ACR3.xx

Anyone here noticed the same things going on in their images? I'd be most interested to hear your opinions on ACR 4.1 sharpening.

[brianchapman]

Hey Ghibby,

You're not alone.  There have been quite a few complaints about the sharpening/smoothing in 4.1 (4.0 did not have the issue).  The problem, from what I understand, is as a result of default smoothing that is applied even when luminance noise reduction is set to 0 (it's more noticeable at the default of 25).  In combination with the detail slider this can produce some really ugly results that noticeably deteriorate under further processing.

This thread details some of the issues but focuses on the high ISO files - which may have increased default luminance noise reduction by default than low ISO files.  
http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx/.3bb6a869.3bc45755

In any case, I have seen what I consider to be a similar problem in low ISO files - although I can't say for sure if the cause is the same.  For my own workflow I turn luminance noise reduction to 0 and then work within the low end of the ACR sharpening tools for my capture sharpening.

I have been trying DCRAW recently which I know doesn't apply sharpening/smoothing and I was able to get the results I expected...although I ran in to a different problem which hasn't been resolved so I'm still using ACR.  

Hope this helps.

Brian

[Ghibby]

Hi Brian, thanks for your information,
I have read most of the thread you linked to which seems primarily concerned with high ISO images shot on Canon Cameras.  While I have noticed the effect in high ISO images it is not this that concerns me as I tend to shoot the vast majority or my images at ISO 100 and 200.  I am seeing these effects appear in all of my images regardless of ISO settings.

Having compared a few images processed in ACR 3.xx to those in ACR 4.1 I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that I prefer the subtlety of results in the earlier versions of the software.  

I do hope that Adobe provides a new version of ACR soon that offers the subtlety of processing they used to have with the sophistication of the newer controls.  In the mean time i am going to try and track down ACR 4.05 which apparently has none of the sharpening tools but has the clarity and vibrance sliders which i find very useful indeed.

If not I think I’ll have to go back to good old ACR 3.6 and do more work later in Photoshop as a result.

Thanks again, Ben

[macgyver]

Ghibby,

I will agree with your on this, there is a very noticable change, even on low ISO shots.  So far I've not upgraded my copy of CS3 to 4.1 but have kept 4.0 and been happy. However, I suppose that I'll have to updage sometime if I wish to open the files from my 40d.  The optomistic part of me wonders in the next version of Camera Raw will be any different or more refined from what is there now (this would be if Adobe listened to customers), however the realistic and experianced part of me knows that if adobe sticks with its "Yeah, it's different, suck it up; it's our software" mindset (which they will) it won't change.

Oh well...at least everyone else is using the same thing...

[Schewe]

however the realistic and experianced part of me knows that if adobe sticks with its "Yeah, it's different, suck it up; it's our software" mindset (which they will) it won't change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure where you get this impression...you clearly don't know the people involved with Camera Raw and Lightroom.

Some people were "complaining" about the Camera Raw 4.1 (and Lightroom 1.1) change in the demosiacing...very FEW of them bothered to provide actual raw files, those that did (on the Camera Raw forum) I downloaded and tested using Camera Raw 4 and 4.1. The Camera Raw 4.1, when "properly sharpened" in Camera Raw (and PhotoKit sharpener afterwards for printing) produced notably better prints.

Looking at an image at 100%-400% zoom in Camera Raw or Photoshop tells you zippo about the real micro-detail that will print-when printing even at 360PPI.

So, if one bases their assesment of Camera Raw based ONLY on an overlarge sized image at 100-400% zoom, they simply don't know what they are looking at.

As for whether "Adobe" (which is really funny because it really boils down to one guy, Thomas Knoll) will or won't change the default demosiacing, they (he) will if they (he) thinks it's important to do so. And yes, I dare say that Thomas knows just a bit more than "most people" when it comes to both Camera Raw code and the optimal processing of raw files...I trust their (Thomas') knowledge and experience a lot more than some nameless and faceless screen names on forums...but hey, that's just me.

[Ghibby]

Didnt want this to turn in to a will they wont they change it kind of post, all i'm after is a technical explantion of what, in my opinion, is a step backward in Adobe's subtlety of processing of RAW images. I've been using Adobe software for over ten years and do so because I believe it to be the best out there. I have seen many changes in this time and also have faith that the company is striving for the best quality of image possible. Mistakes in the evolution of a product need to occur for us to learn.

I am more than happy to provide a few samples of images, or 100% crops of these images from both RAW files and my final processed images in full 16bit colour.

Just let me know where you want them sent.

Ben

[brianchapman]

Jeff,

In an article you wrote about ACR 4.1 sharpening for PhotoshopNews.com:

http://www.photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/

you write the following:

As with previous versions of Camera Raw, you need to be at a zoom range of 100% (one image pixel for one screen display pixel) to see the effect that the sharpening controls will have on your image. This is an important note as you can change the controls but you won’t see any feedback of what the controls are doing to your image. It’s even more important now that there are more controls in Camera Raw 4.1.

and further in to the article:

The figure below shows a screen shot of the processed image at 100% zoom in Photoshop. I think (and we are still testing this approach) that contrary to the old “make it look crunchy at 100%” of the past, the new approach is to make the image “just right” at 100% in Camera Raw & Photoshop. It’s an easier and more visible approach that allows for further work down-stream such as creative sharpening and output sharpening.

It seems that both of these statements are contrary to the statement you make in this thread:

Looking at an image at 100%-400% zoom in Camera Raw or Photoshop tells you zippo about the real micro-detail that will print-when printing even at 360PPI.  So, if one bases their assesment of Camera Raw based ONLY on an overlarge sized image at 100-400% zoom, they simply don't know what they are looking at.

Are you suggesting that we should not be viewing the image at 100% when assessing the required amount of capture (and other) sharpening to be applied (with the ultimate goal being the amount of sharpening that will produce the best looking print)?  I've been using View->Print Size when making the final assessment prior to sending the file to the printer and although it doesn't show up in the print, in PS at 100% the image does look slightly "crunchy" or haloed in certain areas.  

I think the difficulty for many people (including me) is being able to disconnect what we're seeing on the screen from what the print will look - especially with regards to sharpening.  

Thanks,

Brian

[Schewe]

all i'm after is a technical explantion of what, in my opinion, is a step backward in Adobe's subtlety of processing of RAW images.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137008\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What you think you are seeing is not a result of the Camera Raw sharpening, it's the change in the luminance noise reduction that is part of the demosaicing. What you perceive as high frequency "grain" is high frequency noise that the demosaicing in 4.1 is eliminating (or reducing depending on the actual slider setting). Some people think that this high frequency noise is micro-detail. It's not. If you are making your judgements on a computer display at 100-400 zoom, what you are looking at isn't real–not when you turn around and print at 300-480PPI or through a halftone line screen. A computer display is a low resolution device. If your final output is 300PPI, the display is at best showing 100PPI when at 100% (1 image pixel for 1 screen pixel). In order to view at 100%, the image is made at least 3X larger than it is in reality. So, you think you see stuff but that stuff will _NEVER_ print.

And yes, this was a "change" because Thomas tested out a lot of demosaicing approaches and decided that reducing the processed image's noise produces smoother and more sharpenable images. It's entirely possible that as a result, you'll have to alter the sharpening approach you take with your images.

For myself, Camera Raw 4.1's smoother demosaicing and substantially improved sharpening has resulted in MUCH BETTER processing. And I don't say this lightly...I worked with the Camera Raw team to do just that. If you feel a strong need to have super high frequency "grain" in your images, you can certainly do so afterwards as a post process...just don't confuse high frequency noise with real and useful micro-detail.

[Schewe]

Are you suggesting that we should not be viewing the image at 100% when assessing the required amount of capture (and other) sharpening to be applied (with the ultimate goal being the amount of sharpening that will produce the best looking print)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137088\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You don't have a choice regarding being at 100% zoom to preview the effects of the Camera Raw sharpening since it doesn't preview at below 100%. But no, I do NOT think that you should be doing the complete sharpening based on 100% previews, just the "capture sharpening" in which you are tryinging to get it "just right" or regain the apparent sharpening lost in the digitalization process. But that's way different than trying to do creative or output sharpening...neither of which Camera Raw does.

Capture sharpening is a gentle process and NOT designed to be sharpening "for effect". Capture sharpening can NOT do anything about out of focus or camera shake...and capture sharpening is not intended to be final output sharpening...if you look at an image that has been run through PhotoKit Output Sharpener for an inkjet at 100-400% I doubt you will find the image attractive. It looks way oversharpened at 100-400% zoom in Photoshop. But if you look at it at 25% zoom (closer but still not exactly the same as the final print) or print the thing, you won't see the apparent oversharpening because it's below the visible threashold.

So, the take away in this whole discussion is that people need to adjust how they are looking at and evaluating images on a computer display and understand what it is they are and are not seeing. And...the ultimate truth is in the print (if that is the intended final output). How does the print look? For me, Camera Raw 4.1 is superior...YMMV

[picnic]

You don't have a choice regarding being at 100% zoom to preview the effects of the Camera Raw sharpening since it doesn't preview at below 100%. But no, I do NOT think that you should be doing the complete sharpening based on 100% previews, just the "capture sharpening" in which you are tryinging to get it "just right" or regain the apparent sharpening lost in the digitalization process. But that's way different than trying to do creative or output sharpening...neither of which Camera Raw does.

Capture sharpening is a gentle process and NOT designed to be sharpening "for effect". Capture sharpening can NOT do anything about out of focus or camera shake...and capture sharpening is not intended to be final output sharpening...if you look at an image that has been run through PhotoKit Output Sharpener for an inkjet at 100-400% I doubt you will find the image attractive. It looks way oversharpened at 100-400% zoom in Photoshop. But if you look at it at 25% zoom (closer but still not exactly the same as the final print) or print the thing, you won't see the apparent oversharpening because it's below the visible threashold.

So, the take away in this whole discussion is that people need to adjust how they are looking at and evaluating images on a computer display and understand what it is they are and are not seeing. And...the ultimate truth is in the print (if that is the intended final output). How does the print look? For me, Camera Raw 4.1 is superior...YMMV
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And, to bring this up to print---so we all understand--you are sharpening for output in PKS in PS---or using one of the 3 settings for printing in LR (which, after I read a bit, discovered that they, too, are based on the size of the print--but I don't know much else about how they sharpen)?  I am now using LR for capture after watching the tutes (both C2P and LR) but still am not sure about what I will do for output.  I did try an 8 x 10 print from LR (after softproofing and adjusting with layers in PS and bringing back to LR for test)--couldn't quibble with it and not significantly different from using PKS for size/paper in PS.  Does LR take into account the paper type as PKS does?  (if not, I'm guessing that that's in the works perhaps??).

Diane

[Schewe]

  Does LR take into account the paper type as PKS does?  (if not, I'm guessing that that's in the works perhaps??).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137102\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nope...and that's a shortcoming that will be addressed at some point. Also to be accurate, it ain't the size of the print that matters (and in this case, size DOESN'T matter) but the pixel density...how many pixels per inch. The same pixels x pixels can be expressed in a variety of sizes but it's the actual PPI that dictates how the output sharpening is being done in combination with the media type.

[Ghibby]

You don't have a choice regarding being at 100% zoom to preview the effects of the Camera Raw sharpening since it doesn't preview at below 100%. But no, I do NOT think that you should be doing the complete sharpening based on 100% previews, just the "capture sharpening" in which you are tryinging to get it "just right" or regain the apparent sharpening lost in the digitalization process. But that's way different than trying to do creative or output sharpening...neither of which Camera Raw does.

Capture sharpening is a gentle process and NOT designed to be sharpening "for effect". Capture sharpening can NOT do anything about out of focus or camera shake...and capture sharpening is not intended to be final output sharpening...if you look at an image that has been run through PhotoKit Output Sharpener for an inkjet at 100-400% I doubt you will find the image attractive. It looks way oversharpened at 100-400% zoom in Photoshop. But if you look at it at 25% zoom (closer but still not exactly the same as the final print) or print the thing, you won't see the apparent oversharpening because it's below the visible threashold.

So, the take away in this whole discussion is that people need to adjust how they are looking at and evaluating images on a computer display and understand what it is they are and are not seeing. And...the ultimate truth is in the print (if that is the intended final output). How does the print look? For me, Camera Raw 4.1 is superior...YMMV
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137092\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff thanks for the info regarding the new demosaicing approach taken by Adobe, this has clarified part of the issue for me. I have also been following some of the threads on the Adobe forums regarding this issue, they do get a bit on the bitchy side though  

Interstingly and I suppose supporting your views to an extent I have made some prints from my early ACR 4.1 processed image and find that the smothing effect is visible when making even small A4 prints. However I stress that these were early processing attempts and I know with hindsight that I put too high values for the sharpening amounts and more specifically the detail sliders which has caused this.  I have yet to print my most recently processed images but these also look better on screen at all magnifications and I have no doubt the prints will be better too.I will add to this thread when I do make my prints.  

Out of curiosity what kind of value ranges would you use for capture sharpening on landscape based images with plenty of high frequency detail such as grass stretching from foreground to infinity, or is this too camera specific to be of any value?

In light of the fact that Adobe has added these new controls and it would appear that many photographers are struggling to get the best out of them a few sharpening only presets for common image types may be useful to use as a starting point.

[Schewe]

Out of curiosity what kind of value ranges would you use for capture sharpening on landscape based images with plenty of high frequency detail such as grass stretching from foreground to infinity, or is this too camera specific to be of any value?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Camera Raw doesn't ship with presets, but Lightroom 1.1 did.

Portraits:
Amount: 35
Radius: 1.2
Detail: 20
Masking: 70

Landscape:
Amount: 40
Radius: .8
Detail: 50
Masking: 0

These were based on 11-16MP raw captures at lower ISO (under 400). Different capture sizes will need different amounts and radii. The aim is to get the image to "just look good" at 100% zoom with no additional sharpening for "effect". It's important not to over sharpen at the capture stage.

As I indicated previously, you have to be at 100% in Camera Raw to preview the effects, but a better judge of final sharpening is to view at 25% in Photoshop if you are doing high rez inkjet printing or 50% (4 image pixels for one screen pixel–kinda like the dithering involved with halftone dots) for halftone repro. It's still not size accurate and the display won't really look exactly like the print, but it's far more predictive than a 100% zoom would be.

We're looking at doing something regarding detail previews for sharpening but it'll be in the next major rev, not an update to CR or LR.

[brianchapman]

Jeff,

Thanks for the clarifications, etc...I think this discussion has actually provided quite a bit of useful information regarding the best way to use ACR.

Thanks!

[Ghibby]

Jeff,

Thanks for the clarifications, etc...I think this discussion has actually provided quite a bit of useful information regarding the best way to use ACR.

Thanks!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=137125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm with you on that, this has been most useful.

I have played around a bit more with the ACR 4.1 sharpening and detail controls and have found some very useful settings. Combined with a further round of creative sharpening and a final print sharpen I have also just printed some recent images and am delighted with the results.  The clarity and vibrance tools are fantastic and my issues with the new demosaicing approach have largely been answered.

I continue to watch the forums both here and at Adobe's website on ths issue with much interest!

Ben