Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: DeeJay on February 24, 2011, 02:52:34 pm
-
It's really difficult to know how much to sharpen and image by judgement on a monitor.
I'm just wondering what really is thought about sharpening. Do you do it when viewing the image at 100%? or 50%? or do you have a better way?
-
Hi,
One recommendation is that you do a three step sharpening process:
1) Capture sharpening is intended to regain what has been lost at capture (AA-filter, lens softness, defocus)
2) Creative sharpening done to enhance picture
3) Sharpen for print
Capture sharpening would be done at actual pixels and should aim good sharpness and detail extraction without creating visible halos.
Sharpening for print is best done with some special tool. Lightroom is good at handling 1) and 3). Photokit sharpener does all three.
Best regards
Erik
It's really difficult to know how much to sharpen and image by judgement on a monitor.
I'm just wondering what really is thought about sharpening. Do you do it when viewing the image at 100%? or 50%? or do you have a better way?
-
Thanks for the info. I'm actually concerned only about output sharpening.
It's offset CMYK printing that I'm finding hard to judge for in particular, it looks so different from an inkjet. I've been told by many people tell to sharpen it more than what you think you would needbut it's not a great guide.
I'm kind of hoping for some kind of repeatable formula.
-
I'm kind of hoping for some kind of repeatable formula.
As long as you haven't already converted into CMYK, there's an app for that :~)
PhotoKit Sharpener 2 (http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener2/index.html)
-
Hi,
I can recommend "Real World Image Sharpening" by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe. The book contains lot of information on sharpening. Photokit Sharpener implements their suggestions.
Best regards
Erik
Thanks for the info. I'm actually concerned only about output sharpening.
It's offset CMYK printing that I'm finding hard to judge for in particular, it looks so different from an inkjet. I've been told by many people tell to sharpen it more than what you think you would needbut it's not a great guide.
I'm kind of hoping for some kind of repeatable formula.
-
no sharpening at all
-
To sharpen for offset printing I usually fix the resolution of the image I am working on at 300dpi and open the print at 100% of my final print size in Photoshop, zoom in two or three steps so that I can see more detail than will appear in print, then adjust the sharpening to what looks acceptable on my monitor without any noticable artifacts. That way I figure I get as sharp as possible without running the risk of any artifacts or other garbage I had not noticed turning up on the printed page, which would be much more of a problem than under-sharpening.
I also always insist on seeing at least a couple of page proofs before approving the final print run, and often find it necessary to make microadjustments to each image after doing this, as each printing press has its own characteristics that are hard to predict if you are not working regularly with the same software, press operater, ink etc.
Most important, I suggest you consult with the person who runs the press you plan to print on, as that is where you will get a really useful answer rather than an educated guess like this. Most printing presses are hungry for business and will go out of their way to try and make you happy enough to come back again next time.
-
I like Lowep's post best so far.
I believe the best sharpening method begins at time of capture. Before any sharpening is done, I blow my images up to at least 100 percent, and if they don't hold up, I trash them. While the saying, "garbabe in-garbage out" is an exaggeration, there is some truth to it.
Like with other aspects of PP, the less you do the better, because any adjustment you make in PP doesn't just change the target aspect, but many other aspects throught the spectrum. Introduction of artifacts is the most common problem with sharpening. One of the most common reasons for rejection with stock agencies is "oversharpening," and it doesn't take much to bring that verdict. They have good reasons for such strigent requirements, but they, too, are based upon output IQ.
-
Hi,
There are a lot of good reasons to sharpen:
1) Loss of MTF in sampling
2) Diffusion in printing
So you would restore what was lost in imaging and sampling and precompensate for what will be lost in the printing process.
You can ignore sharpening in your process, but you will not achieve optimal results.
Best regards
Erik
no sharpening at all
-
There are also many good reason not to do it, what do you want to show exactly ?
Hi,
There are a lot of good reasons to sharpen:
1) Loss of MTF in sampling
2) Diffusion in printing
So you would restore what was lost in imaging and sampling and precompensate for what will be lost in the printing process.
You can ignore sharpening in your process, but you will not achieve optimal results.
Best regards
Erik
-
Which reasons?
The only case I can see when you would not need any sharpening is if:
- You have a perfect lens
- No AA-filter
- Exact focus
- Large enough aperture to avoid diffraction
- Look at your images on an LCD screen, so you don't have diffusion on output
Best regards
Erik
There are also many good reason not to do it, what do you want to show exactly ?
-
no sharpening at all
Then you are leaving image quality on the table...if IQ matters to you, you need to do image sharpening.
-
Then you are leaving image quality on the table...if IQ matters to you, you need to do image sharpening.
then we don't see at all photo in the same way
-
then we don't see at all photo in the same way
Oh, I don't doubt that at all...
For me, it's all about getting the absolute best image quality from the best images I can create...the demands on my images are both artistic and technical excellence...and in order to achieve that, there is no way I'm ever going to NOT apply the optimal amount of both noise reduction and image sharpening. It may not matter to some people but it does to me.
And, I think I have the credentials to say that...sorry, I don't know what credentials you have.
-
And, I think I have the credentials to say that...sorry, I don't know what credentials you have.
I see ... credential for you is a kind of sharpening
-
I see ... credential for you is a kind of sharpening
No...when somebody with an anonymous screen name and no web site listed to show work says something like "I don't need sharpening", I want to know what you think you know? Because I know what I know and I know every image needs sharpening in post production. So, who are you to say you don't need sharpening? Really, I'm curious...
-
no sharpening at all
You've got to love freedom of expression!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You've got to love freedom of expression!
Cheers,
Bernard
Indeed!
Nothing wrong with not sharpening, if that's what you like.
But to answer a question about how much sharpening to apply with 'none' and supply no reasoning or qualifiers behind it is less than useful. As Jeff says, I'm genuinely curious about the reasons as well.
-
I would not call this picture of Ragnar Axelsson sharp : http://www.lecerclepolaire.com/images/agenda/rax-axel/Rax-20.jpg
or these photos : http://www.gilbert-garcin.com/
to be a good image, it should not necessarily look like plastic
-
Which reasons?
The only case I can see when you would not need any sharpening is if:
- You have a perfect lens
- No AA-filter
- Exact focus
- Large enough aperture to avoid diffraction
- Look at your images on an LCD screen, so you don't have diffusion on output
Best regards
Erik
not exactly - may be he is into lowish light, high iso, b/w, grainy, slightly motion blurred style of images... that kind of stuff... albeit you might argue that even then the sharpening can make the "grain" better it might not be the case for him 8)
-
I would not call this picture of Ragnar Axelsson sharp : http://www.lecerclepolaire.com/images/agenda/rax-axel/Rax-20.jpg
to be a good image, it should not necessarily look like plastic
right !
-
I would not call this picture of Ragnar Axelsson sharp...
So, what would YOU consider sharp?
It's pretty easy to snipe from the sidelines...a bit different when you have skin in the game. What do ya got bud? Come on, back it up? What do ya got? You got game?
I know what I know...what do you know...back it up...prove us wrong...come on, you can do it!
-
So, what would YOU consider sharp?
I looked at your photos, I find them sharp
-
Which reasons?
The only case I can see when you would not need any sharpening is if:
- You have a perfect lens
- No AA-filter
- Exact focus
- Large enough aperture to avoid diffraction
- Look at your images on an LCD screen, so you don't have diffusion on output
Best regards
Erik
for the first 4 points it is generally the case with MF camera
thanks
-
Hi,
I'd say that you may be a bit optimistic.
There seems to be significant sample variations between MF lenses. AF is essentially similar to DSLRs. Alignment between sensor, lens, AF, Mirror and ground glass is a problem with MF and also with DSLRs. Live view works around some of the problems.
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
From what I have seen from images taken with Pentax 645D they seem to need about the same amount of sharpening as similar images from Nikon D3X. That comes as a surprise, because the Pentax 645D lacks AA-filter. On the other hand the Pentax 645D does have microlenses which act a bit into the same direction as the AA-filter. The microlenses increase the "fill factor", so the area between sensels will appear to be reduced. This counter acts aliasing.
Diffraction also affects MF, image quality is degraded when stopping down. It may be argued that MFDBs have larger sensor pitch and would therefore be less affected by diffraction, but most modern MFDBs seem to be in the 6 micron range, being very close to full frame DSLRs.
Even if you would have a perfect image it would need to be sharpened for output.
In my view, sharpening is an essential part of the digital workflow.
Best regards
Erik
for the first 4 points it is generally the case with MF camera
thanks
-
Hi,
I'd say that you may be a bit optimistic.
There seems to be significant sample variations between MF lenses. AF is essentially similar to DSLRs. Alignment between sensor, lens, AF, Mirror and ground glass is a problem with MF and also with DSLRs. Live view works around some of the problems.
http://www.josephholmes.com/news-medformatprecision.html
From what I have seen from images taken with Pentax 645D they seem to need about the same amount of sharpening as similar images from Nikon D3X. That comes as a surprise, because the Pentax 645D lacks AA-filter. On the other hand the Pentax 645D does have microlenses which act a bit into the same direction as the AA-filter. The microlenses increase the "fill factor", so the area between sensels will appear to be reduced. This counter act aliasing.
Diffraction also affects MF, image quality is degraded when stopping down. It may be argued that MFDBs have larger sensor pitch and would therefore be less affected by diffraction, but most modern MFDBs seem to be in the 6 micron range, being very close to full frame DSLRs.
Even if you would have a perfect image it would need to be sharpened for output.
In my view, sharpening is an essential part of the digital workflow.
Best regards
Erik
with a P45 + Hasselblad H1 + HC 210 mm I have never seen the necessity to sharpen, but I can be wrong of course
-
The thing is, it depends on the image, the look and of corse it's all so subjective.
Even shooting on a P65+ with a 120mm at f11 on a Blad I still use sharpening to some degree to massage/enhance the detail. Although it's much less than what I'd push it to on a Canon, but just because there is alot more detail there doesn't mean it should, or you have to leave it alone.
I do believe that every image requires some kind of sharpening and particularly so when printing with certain outputs or resizing.
Offset printing requires more sharpening than what is considered normal, that is what I was trying to get to terms with here. It's hard to judge with the monitors that we use and it was brushed on in the post here recently about softproofing.
Unfortunately extensive proofing is becoming harder to get clients to spring for, especially wet proofs are way too expensive for magazine productions. It litearlly means stopping the press while the proofs are evaluated and it costs big bickies. On top of all that, shooting 5 days a week makes it difficult to keep it all in check so I'm looking for some kind of ball parkformula, which in theory could exist - I'm guessing some people out there have some kind of formula that works for them - ie. get it to how you want it to look and then add 30% with a radius of 1...or something, hence the post.
-
Hi!
I still recommend Photokit Sharpener and/or the Fraser/Schewe book.
Best regards
Erik
The thing is, it depends on the image, the look and of corse it's all so subjective.
Even shooting on a P65+ with a 120mm at f11 on a Blad I still use sharpening to some degree to massage/enhance the detail. Although it's much less than what I'd push it to on a Canon, but just because there is alot more detail there doesn't mean it should, or you have to leave it alone.
I do believe that every image requires some kind of sharpening and particularly so when printing with certain outputs or resizing.
Offset printing requires more sharpening than what is considered normal, that is what I was trying to get to terms with here. It's hard to judge with the monitors that we use and it was brushed on in the post here recently about softproofing.
Unfortunately extensive proofing is becoming harder to get clients to spring for, especially wet proofs are way too expensive for magazine productions. It litearlly means stopping the press while the proofs are evaluated and it costs big bickies. On top of all that, shooting 5 days a week makes it difficult to keep it all in check so I'm looking for some kind of ball parkformula, which in theory could exist - I'm guessing some people out there have some kind of formula that works for them - ie. get it to how you want it to look and then add 30% with a radius of 1...or something, hence the post.
-
I looked at your photos, I find them sharp
:D :D
I have a great day today.
anything else to laugh? :D
-
There's something about this thread that made The Onion's current main story (here (http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/)) resonate with me.
Jeremy
-
There's something about this thread that made The Onion's current main story (here (http://www.theonion.com/articles/openminded-man-grimly-realizes-how-much-life-hes-w,19273/)) resonate with me.
:-)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Cheers, will check it out!
-
People, you do realize you are debating an anonymous, no-web site, 10-year old? ;)
-
my real age is 135...