Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: PBC on November 09, 2010, 02:00:17 pm
-
OK, I know a lot of this answer depends on the captured image, the camera, the lens and the data in the RAW file, but I am going to ask anyway ;D
What would be a "normal" range (amount, radius, detail, masking) when applying sharpening using the Detail settings for a general landscape image (wide view, with clouds, trees, etc.)?
I know it will vary with different images, but I am wondering what the normal sort of ball-parks are for this sort of high-frequency image.
Appreciate the answer will be very general.
Thanks
Phil
-
OK, I know a lot of this answer depends on the captured image, the camera, the lens and the data in the RAW file, but I am going to ask anyway ;D
Uh, more than "a lot"...it ALL depends on the image source and content.
The only generalities are that "landscape" images tend to need a radius set for high frequency images which is usually less than a 1 pixel and that in general, the detail slider needs to be above the default setting of 25.
-
Hi!
A few answers...
1) According to Eric Chan (Madmanchan on these forums) the detail slider chooses between unsharp mask and deconvolution. Deconvolution may help slight defocus and diffraction.
2) If you want to try deconvolution set detail to 100% and radius to minimum, increase amount to maximum acceptable and go back a bit.
3) Increase radius slightly and check fine detail
Agressive sharpening enhances noise. So you would have some noise reduction, also in luminance.
This is one approach, it may work for you or it may not.
Best regards
Erik
OK, I know a lot of this answer depends on the captured image, the camera, the lens and the data in the RAW file, but I am going to ask anyway ;D
What would be a "normal" range (amount, radius, detail, masking) when applying sharpening using the Detail settings for a general landscape image (wide view, with clouds, trees, etc.)?
I know it will vary with different images, but I am wondering what the normal sort of ball-parks are for this sort of high-frequency image.
Appreciate the answer will be very general.
Thanks
Phil
-
Reduce noise first, it's never nice to sharpen noise.
Then I'd say it's up to taste. I've found that a 50% view is usually good enough for medium sized prints, if it looks good at 50% then it looks good in the print.
-
Reduce noise first, it's never nice to sharpen noise.
Then I'd say it's up to taste. I've found that a 50% view is usually good enough for medium sized prints, if it looks good at 50% then it looks good in the print.
First off, since Lightroom is parametric, you don't need to reduce noise first...point in fact, sharpening and noise reduction in Lightroom is actually an interactive activity. As you adjust one you'll need to tweak the other. And as it relates to viewing size, no. You DON'T want to be doing capture sharpening at 50%. If you are talking about output sharpening, that's Photoshop not Lightroom. In Lightroom you don't even see the print sharpening until you see the print.
-
Hi,
This really boiled down to the three stage sharpening process advocated by the late Bruce Fraser and Jeff.
- Capture sharpening tries to restore image to optimal sharpness by compensating for contrast lost in the from subject to digital image. At this stage the image should have no halos at 1:1.
Creative sharpening is whatever needs to be done selectively or globally to enhance image.
Output sharpening ads a quite extreme sharpening to compensate for ink diffusion in print. Output sharpening would be down after uprezzing and is both print and media dependent. You would have a very different sharpening for offset printing, error diffusion normally used in inkjet and continuos tone like Durst Lambda or Lightjet.
Best regards
Erik
First off, since Lightroom is parametric, you don't need to reduce noise first...point in fact, sharpening and noise reduction in Lightroom is actually an interactive activity. As you adjust one you'll need to tweak the other. And as it relates to viewing size, no. You DON'T want to be doing capture sharpening at 50%. If you are talking about output sharpening, that's Photoshop not Lightroom. In Lightroom you don't even see the print sharpening until you see the print.
-
You would have a very different sharpening for offset printing, error diffusion normally used in inkjet and continuos tone like Durst Lambda or Lightjet.[/li][/list]
Right...up to the point of mentioning contone sharpening...when we were working at putting PhotoKit Sharpener in Lightroom we determined that the difference in the final output sharpening between ink jet and contone was not big enough to actually worry about...so that's why Lightroom only has a "print" and "screen" output sharpening. However, the sharpening needed for halftone is considerably different–but Lightroom doesn't do CMYK output so there was no reason to put it in (that and Adobe didn't acquire that sharpening routine from PG).
-
Thanks guys; the radius less than 1 and detail greater than 25 gives me a good ballpark to where to start.
One thing still, with landscape images (i.e., high frequency), what would the the ball-park approach for masking?
Phil
-
Masking is entirely content dependent. Images with large continuous tone areas like sky and a bit of noise usually would be masked out. Foggy images, etc.
I use 15 as s default, but that is probably meaningless...
Dave
-
Don't forget to hold down the alt/option key when dragging the sharpening sliders to see what's being affected.