Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: rabanito on March 06, 2019, 10:08:35 am
-
I'v reading about this AI Topaz sharpener and tried it myself on some imaages
The results are visible on the 100% images and I have no issues about that.
But, printing the image and looking at it at a reasonable distance, I don't see any VERY noticeable difference.
Then I ask - allowing for my absolutely newbie status - Is that necessary?
When is this profitable, if you almost need a magnifying glass to see it?
Aside that the world as we know it is also only sharp up to a point
What am I missing?
Opinions?
-
Sharpness is overrated.
-
It is sharp enough if you think it is.
-
I'v reading about this AI Topaz sharpener and tried it myself on some imaages
The results are visible on the 100% images and I have no issues about that.
But, printing the image and looking at it at a reasonable distance, I don't see any VERY noticeable difference.
Hi,
That depends on how you prepared the print datafile and at what output size (and for which viewing distances) it is output (and on which printer).
"Topaz Sharpen AI" has several types of sharpening, two of which are more aimed at salvaging images, rather than Capture Sharpening.
Output-Sharpening is yet another procedure. Output-Sharpening is aiming at offsetting resampling blur and adding a pre-correction of anticipated print medium/ink losses, and improving the visible detail at a given viewing distance.
"Topaz Sharpen AI" is very good for Capture sharpening, "Topaz A.I. Gigapixel" is very good at resizing to the printer's native resolution, and "Topaz Precision Detail" is (besides Creative "sharpening") also very good for Output-Sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Sharpness is overrated.
A bourgeois concept, even. 8)
-
"Topaz Sharpen AI" is very good for Capture sharpening, "Topaz A.I. Gigapixel" is very good at resizing to the printer's native resolution, and "Topaz Precision Detail" is (besides Creative "sharpening") also very good for Output-Sharpening.
Thanks Bart
Does this mean that TSharpenAI should be used for Capture Sharpening in mode "sharpen" and for Creative Sharpening and eventually Output Sharpening the more adequate choice would be "Topaz Precision Detail"?
Does this make "Topaz A.I. Gigapixel" kind of superfluous?
I'll take a look at those apps by myself but maybe you can give some orientation?
-
Thanks Bart
Does this mean that TSharpenAI should be used for Capture Sharpening in mode "sharpen" and for Creative Sharpening and eventually Output Sharpening the more adequate choice would be "Topaz Precision Detail"?
That's what I do.
Does this make "Topaz A.I. Gigapixel" kind of superfluous?
No, it's a new star at resizing output (up to 6x the original linear dimensions).
Cheers,
Bart
-
That's what I do.
No, it's a new star at resizing output (up to 6x the original linear dimensions).
Cheers,
Bart
Thank you :)
-
Sharpness is overrated.
Yes I tend to agree with that.
Thinking in pre-visualization terms, on one's "mind's eye" sharpness doesn't play a very great role.
Anyway digital photography moves in a different realm than wet and I'm interested in learning what is possible and what is superfluous (for me).
At times the sharper photography looks sharper only if compared side-by-side with the less sharp one, what in "real life" is not going to happen frequently
At least as I perceive it
-
Sharpness is overrated. It is sharp enough if you think it is.
To a great extent I tend to agree with both of these sentiments. I believe we are getting so caught up in the "Sharpness" of the image that we tend to ignore the actual content sometimes. I do agree that an image should be at least sharp enough to portray the initial meaning the photographer had in mind when making the exposure. Beyond that it's basically a matter of which AI App can perhaps out-perform another one. If your goal is to be able to see the gnat on the fly on the wart on the frog on the log in the hole in the bottom of the see, well, go for it. One more reason for me to upgrade my eye glass prescription I suppose, so I can indeed appreciate all of these Super Sharp details that in many cases add little to the overall impact of the SHOT. At a "proper" viewing distance per print size, all of those gnats will be lost to the vast majority of the viewing public. And in closing, to paraphrase a saying; "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't always mean you should".
There you have it, my early morning gnat rant :o
Gary
-
Many times I give my prints a glow to give them an old world feel, especially street shots of old areas. Same with portraits, very often a slight glow to take the edge off. I find this obsessive drive to get sharper and sharper images by purchasing the latest, greatest ( and expensive ) lenses, looking at 100% into the deep corners to ensure every pixel is perfect etc... kind of humerous.
If one needs to zoom into 100% to maybe see a difference...then from my perspective you are wasting time and money.
-
I agree with hogloff. For my portrait shoots I export images from C1 to PS with all sharpening disabled. I might add some sharpening in PS or I might not. Sharpening (where, how much) is a creative decision.
-
Many times I give my prints a glow to give them an old world feel, especially street shots of old areas. Same with portraits, very often a slight glow to take the edge off. I find this obsessive drive to get sharper and sharper images by purchasing the latest, greatest ( and expensive ) lenses, looking at 100% into the deep corners to ensure every pixel is perfect etc... kind of humerous.
If one needs to zoom into 100% to maybe see a difference...then from my perspective you are wasting time and money.
again that is you... and you are right.... for you... and the images that you seek.
if you need to add a glow... why not use some old lenses without coatings... (?)
My taste is different- and if you have a very sharp lens it becomes not that important to sharpen it in post...
I used to add 200% 1-2 pixel unsharp mask in 2005..? ( no good wide lenses available) now i add about 25 % 0.5 pixel... or something like that, just to get rid of the bayer marix unsharpness.
Then sharp well made lenses are usually also better in other areas like color, coma, astigmatism, bokeh... etc
Again... if you think that is important...
-
If photography is an art (subjective) rather than a measurement (objective), can't it be said that how sharp something should be depends entirely on your intent with the image?
Kent in SD
1932 Brownie No.2, FP4+
-
again that is you... and you are right.... for you... and the images that you seek.
if you need to add a glow... why not use some old lenses without coatings... (?)
My taste is different- and if you have a very sharp lens it becomes not that important to sharpen it in post...
I used to add 200% 1-2 pixel unsharp mask in 2005..? ( no good wide lenses available) now i add about 25 % 0.5 pixel... or something like that, just to get rid of the bayer marix unsharpness.
Then sharp well made lenses are usually also better in other areas like color, coma, astigmatism, bokeh... etc
Again... if you think that is important...
Well like you said, that is you...and if you are after pixel level sharpness for your prints...then by all means keep chasing that rabbit.
I sell large art prints and I've never heard anyone that looks at my prints tell me that's a great print except for that far right corner could be sharper. We've created this fascination with sharpness...yet our customers are so much more interested in the content of the print and no so much about sharpness, bokeh etc...
But don't stop me from your never ending quest of ultimate sharpness...whatever you think makes your prints better.
-
.yet our customers are so much more interested in the content of the print and no so much about sharpness, bokeh etc...
In my humble experience it matters more how one perceives the photograph as a whole than what is in detail.
In the old days of SpotOne you could see a dry BW print that didn't look "that" right.
Then, taking the magnifying glass you could discover lots of tiny white spots on that sky. You would sit at the retouching table and put them away.
Magic! The print looked better.
Thank PS for Content Awareness ;D
And I have also the impression that as a whole an image taken with a sharp objective looks "better" than one that is a little unsharp
Of course if your intent is unsharpness that is then OK.
I also don't want to see green and red pixels, I like to be fooled into seeing yellow :)
But my question at the beginning was
"When is sharp sharp enough" When to stop
-
Then I ask - allowing for my absolutely newbie status - Is that necessary?
When is this profitable, if you almost need a magnifying glass to see it?
Aside that the world as we know it is also only sharp up to a point
What am I missing?
Opinions?
My approach when working on pictures is that sharpness of a picture should not draw attention to itself. If it does, then I haven't done it right, either by not sharpening enough, or too much (the latter being the culprit in the majority of cases it's standing out), and distracts from the picture as a whole. There's a certain range of what level of sharpness is pleasing (i.e. not drawing attention), with more tolerance at the lower end. Having said that, some pictures benefit from a certain level of sharpening, particularly in printed form.
In the end, it's a matter of personal taste and preference. My range of acceptable sharpness for a given picture might well be different from what it is for you.
-
Well like you said, that is you...and if you are after pixel level sharpness for your prints...then by all means keep chasing that rabbit.
I sell large art prints and I've never heard anyone that looks at my prints tell me that's a great print except for that far right corner could be sharper. We've created this fascination with sharpness...yet our customers are so much more interested in the content of the print and no so much about sharpness, bokeh etc...
But don't stop me from your never ending quest of ultimate sharpness...whatever you think makes your prints better.
As an artist i guess you do what you find best for yourself.
What other people think of my art is not something i can be worried about... and i just cannot look in the mind of these people nor do i want to.
I do it for myself- the only one i know and reckon with. If art sells that is very nice; but i know a lot of good artists that do not sell enough. Art business is a tombola.
What ususally sells best in Art is what i call decorative Art...
-
My approach when working on pictures is that sharpness of a picture should not draw attention to itself. If it does, then I haven't done it right, either by not sharpening enough, or too much (the latter being the culprit in the majority of cases it's standing out), and distracts from the picture as a whole. There's a certain range of what level of sharpness is pleasing (i.e. not drawing attention), with more tolerance at the lower end. Having said that, some pictures benefit from a certain level of sharpening, particularly in printed form.
In the end, it's a matter of personal taste and preference. My range of acceptable sharpness for a given picture might well be different from what it is for you.
I can only agree
-
Sharpness is overrated.
Precisely. There are few things more tedious than a pixel-peeper who is more interested in the sharpness of a photo than any thing else.
-
Precisely. There are few things more tedious than a pixel-peeper who is more interested in the sharpness of a photo than any thing else.
Yep. If only people would be so obsessed with other aspects of a photo as they are with pixel peeping sharpness, I'm sure most would be much further ahead in producing amazing work.
-
The opposite is true also. I just came back from a cruise. The ship ohotographer took pictures of me and my wife while we were eating dinner. Before we finished dessert, he returned with 8x10" photos of the shots. So the shots were so unsharpened, smoothed deliberately, to eliminate any wrinkles on our faces, the results made our skin look like liquid plastic. Plus the white balance was off making our skin look like the pink bottoms of walruses. Of course , my wife didn't notice, so pleased she was with how great her smooth skin was; a common comment I'm sure from all women. Actually, I looked a lot younger too although I tried to not let my ego get in front of my photography experience. So I told the photographer to reduce the shot to 5x7 and asked him to reduce the smoothing. I also asked ho to color balance it but he complained the lighting was off which is strange since the room was dark and he was using a flash. In any case. The next day when he was to have to photo ready, we checked and the skin color was pale on one 5x7 and the other 5x7 was just a reduced copy of the original print. So we took the second. My wife liked how smoothly great she looked in it. Well the 5x7 reduced that effect so we bought it.
Regarding over-sharpening, often many pictures just look too fake when that's done. It also adds to the "digital" soap opera look which film tends to avoid.
-
I think subject isolation created by shallow depth-of-field at the time of capture typically provides a more pleasant sense of sharpness in the final image than aggressive manipulation of contrast along edge boundaries during post-processing. For appropriate subjects, of course.