Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Sharpening for the Web  (Read 4379 times)

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Sharpening for the Web
« on: March 14, 2019, 03:39:01 pm »

I made three copies of this image and sharpened one with NIK Output and a second one with Photokit using their defaults for this size (800x540) and for the web
Both sharpening tools have (for my taste) oversharpened, one more than the other.
Is there a reason for that?
My experience with sharpening for Inkjet has been always satisfactory but not for the monitor display.
I know, one can adjust it but perhaps I am missing something?

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2019, 04:02:02 pm »

This subject matter definitely does not need sharpening. Modern cameras already produce images way sharper than in the film era.

Lightroom has output sharpening and enough choices (none, low, medium, high) to satisfy everyone. When I post to Flickr, I sometimes choose "none" or "low," as Flickr's algorithm tends to oversharpen  by itself.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2019, 05:01:07 pm »

I made three copies of this image and sharpened one with NIK Output and a second one with Photokit using their defaults for this size (800x540) and for the web
Both sharpening tools have (for my taste) oversharpened, one more than the other.
Is there a reason for that?

Hi,

In my opinion, the downsampled image (original.jpg) has accumulated a lot of downsampling artifacts (halos and aliasing artifacts). 
Those get only exaggerated further by sharpening them. Best is to try another method before sharpening.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2019, 06:14:23 pm »

I am speaking of sharpening for the screen and of course I believe that in this case it is WYSIWYG. I can adjust sliders until I am satisfied and that's it.
When sharpening for print I have no way of judging how much sharpening is needed. It could be that I'd need some trial and error  :o.

Interestingly, IMO the sharpening for Inkjet printing is always good enough "as is", with the default settings for the given print.
Instead, the offered settings from the same tools tend to oversharpen for my taste when preparing the image for the screen.

So I wondered why. I understand what Bart says about downsampling but this (downsampling) is something that occurs all the time and in my case I always use Automatic Resampling in Photoshop.
I expected that if a tool doesn't oversharpen for Inkjet Printing it would perform similarly well when sharpening for the screen.

It is not of vital importance, just to increase my general knowledge. That's why I originally put it in the Coffee Corner, Jeremy
But it is OK too  ;D




Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2019, 06:22:10 pm »

I am speaking of sharpening for the screen and of course I believe that in this case it is WYSIWYG.
On your display, at 100% yes. On another display, maybe not.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2019, 06:25:53 pm »

On my monitor it seems the original is not sharp... (?)- is it- i mean the image itself.
If you sharpen it it becomes ugly.

Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2019, 06:35:00 pm »

I understand what Bart says about downsampling but this (downsampling) is something that occurs all the time and in my case I always use Automatic Resampling in Photoshop.

I don't know what default downsampling method your Photoshop is set to, but Photoshop used to be very bad for resampling (using the 'Sharper' method, which is horrible). Even regular Bicubic is not very good, unless one first applies some blur to avoid aliasing.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2019, 06:46:58 pm »

I don't know what default downsampling method your Photoshop is set to, but Photoshop used to be very bad for resampling (using the 'Sharper' method, which is horrible). Even regular Bicubic is not very good, unless one first applies some blur to avoid aliasing.

Cheers,
Bart

"Bicubic Automatic"
But I must admit that till you mentioned it I hadn't given that a thought. It's over my head  :)
Logged

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #8 on: March 14, 2019, 06:51:10 pm »

On my monitor it seems the original is not sharp... (?)- is it- i mean the image itself.
If you sharpen it it becomes ugly.

ISO 3200 f/1.4

The nose is sharp. But I agree, I didn't choose a good example
« Last Edit: March 14, 2019, 06:54:43 pm by rabanito »
Logged

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #9 on: March 14, 2019, 06:53:39 pm »

On your display, at 100% yes. On another display, maybe not.

I understand - since it depends on the display - that it is irrelevant whether I sharpen for the web or not, provided that the original image is sharp.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #10 on: March 14, 2019, 06:53:58 pm »

"Bicubic Automatic"
But I must admit that till you mentioned it I hadn't given that a thought. It's over my head  :)
That setting is just fine. It will automatically select the Bicubic algorithm based on if you're sizing up or down. Nothing wrong with how PS does this! Users of course can hose any image by over sharpening when they shouldn't.
On my screen (a NEC PA271Q), the original looks a tad soft.
One major issue with sharpening anything visually is that as you move some sharpening controls up, feel it's a tad too much, then lower, the effect appears to look 'too soft' in comparison. It's one reason why people over sharpen. The eye is playing ticks on them. You need to walk away or refresh your view, then reexamine the image, of course at 1:1 (100%).
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #11 on: March 14, 2019, 08:12:23 pm »

That setting is just fine. It will automatically select the Bicubic algorithm based on if you're sizing up or down. Nothing wrong with how PS does this!

There is a lot wrong with how PS does this! (see attached) I have my CS6 preferences set to regular Bicubic, which produces slightly fewer artifacts on downsampling, and I use Smoother for upsampling by manual override, but that's not optimal either.

Just look at the ringing artifacts that it caused around the cat's whiskers, to point out just one of the many obvious flaws. Not fine at all.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #12 on: March 14, 2019, 08:24:41 pm »

There is a lot wrong with how PS does this! (see attached) 
Maybe with an ancient version of PS you use.  ;D
One can control this with modern versions of the product too:
https://www.creativebloq.com/adobe/photoshop-cc-image-sizing-61411983

I suspect millions of images have been resampled with these algorithm, few singing such an alarm. Sounds like FUD.
For the OP:
https://petapixel.com/2010/02/17/use-bicubic-sharper-for-web-resizing/
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #13 on: March 14, 2019, 08:45:32 pm »

Maybe with an ancient version of PS you use.  ;D
One can control this with modern versions of the product too:
https://www.creativebloq.com/adobe/photoshop-cc-image-sizing-61411983

I suspect millions of images have been resampled with these algorithm, few singing such an alarm. Sounds like FUD.
For the OP:
https://petapixel.com/2010/02/17/use-bicubic-sharper-for-web-resizing/

My webpage from 2004 on the subject of downsampling, https://www.bvdwolf.nl/foto/resample/down_sample.html , is quoted often as an illustration and warning against using poor downsampling algorithms, like Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper.

Many threads here on LuLa have discussed the much better algorithms that are available, including the ones in Lightroom. But Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper is generally considered a bad choice.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #14 on: March 14, 2019, 08:52:39 pm »

Many threads here on LuLa have discussed the much better algorithms that are available, including the ones in Lightroom. But Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper is generally considered a bad choice.
Yes, LR's is better for many reasons. Are you sure the OP is using that product?
Or perhaps the ultimate answer is to use a product from that company that promises to convert a JPEG to a raw, and allow one to edit the JPEG as if it were a raw?
Are there better interpolation algorithms? I'm sure there are, including LR. Does it make a big deal especially for images on a web page, where dog knows what kind or quality display is being used? I suspect not. I'd be far more concerned about all the images on the web being viewed without color management in a browser, or on displays without a lick of calibration than this nit picking about interpolations algorithms. The quality of images are all over the map. There are actual examples where Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper produces perfectly acceptable results. Even in the URL I provided.  ;)
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2019, 09:31:06 pm »

Yes, LR's is better for many reasons. Are you sure the OP is using that product?
Or perhaps the ultimate answer is to use a product from that company that promises to convert a JPEG to a raw, and allow one to edit the JPEG as if it were a raw?
Are there better interpolation algorithms? I'm sure there are, including LR. Does it make a big deal especially for images on a web page, where dog knows what kind or quality display is being used? I suspect not. I'd be far more concerned about all the images on the web being viewed without color management in a browser, or on displays without a lick of calibration than this nit picking about interpolations algorithms. The quality of images are all over the map. There are actual examples where Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper produces perfectly acceptable results. Even in the URL I provided.  ;)

Have you looked at the OP's downsampled image?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #16 on: March 14, 2019, 09:41:30 pm »

Have you looked at the OP's downsampled image?

Cheers,
Bart
Have you looked at my comments about those images?
Yes I have!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2019, 10:04:42 pm »

Have you looked at the OP's downsampled image?

Cheers,
Bart
Have you looked at the OP's raw, or the high rez rendered from it to produce the downsampled image?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2019, 07:44:49 am »

Do i understand from this discussion that the latests versions of LR and Photoshop use different techniques for sharpening ?
and that LR does a better job?


Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up