Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Sharpening for the Web  (Read 4376 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #20 on: March 15, 2019, 09:19:38 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?
Yes, always have.
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 #21 on: March 15, 2019, 10:36:56 am »

Have you looked at my comments about those images?
Yes I have!

Could have fooled me, you even called it a 'tad soft'.

Besides that, you seemed content with the result and in defense of the software that produced that abominable result, which is strange, given the heavy artifacts. But, whatever makes you happy ...

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 #22 on: March 15, 2019, 10:44:27 am »

Could have fooled me, you even called it a 'tad soft'.

Besides that, you seemed content with the result and in defense of the software that produced that abominable result, which is strange, given the heavy artifacts. But, whatever makes you happy ...

Cheers,
Bart
Easily fooled.  :D
An assumption as well; I use LR. Very content!
As for further assumptions; you have seen the OP's raw and full max rendered image as asked ?
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 10:48:59 am by digitaldog »
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 #23 on: March 15, 2019, 11:00:42 am »

Easily fooled.  :D
An assumption as well; I use LR. Very content!

Then why did you share a link to an article about Bicubic Sharper? How does that help the OP?

Quote
As for further assumptions; you have seen the OP's raw and full max rendered image as asked ?

I have not seen it, I did see a crop. Did you see the OP's Raw and full max rendered 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 #24 on: March 15, 2019, 11:08:44 am »

Then why did you share a link to an article about Bicubic Sharper? How does that help the OP?

I have not seen it, I did see a crop. Did you see the OP's Raw and full max rendered image?

Cheers,
Bart
I linked it BECAUSE he use PS! Unless we hear otherwise it's fine but LR is SLIGHTLY visually better.
No, you haven't see the original data so don't make further assumptions about what you see posted here.
No I haven't seen it either and would never post assumptions about the resampled data FROM it!
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 #25 on: March 15, 2019, 11:20:55 am »

I linked it BECAUSE he use PS! Unless we hear otherwise it's fine but LR is SLIGHTLY visually better.
No, you haven't see the original data so don't make further assumptions about what you see posted here.
No I haven't seen it either and would never post assumptions about the resampled data FROM it!

The result (unfortunately) looks like shit, no assumptions needed, just a single observation is needed.

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 #26 on: March 15, 2019, 11:39:05 am »

The result (unfortunately) looks like shit, no assumptions needed, just a single observation is needed.

Cheers,
Bart
Your subjective opinion of what it looks like with massive assumptions as to WHY.
For all "we" know, the original is a camera JPEG. But from a raw, even worse; you have zero idea about the process of rendering it.
Unless you experience it, you are only imagining it. That results in credibility issues.
Enough said on that aspect of aiding the OP.  ;)
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 #27 on: March 15, 2019, 11:57:23 am »

Your subjective opinion of what it looks like with massive assumptions as to WHY.
For all "we" know, the original is a camera JPEG. But from a raw, even worse; you have zero idea about the process of rendering it.
Unless you experience it, you are only imagining it. That results in credibility issues.
Enough said on that aspect of aiding the OP.  ;)

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129534.msg1099940#msg1099940
The advice was clear ...

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 #28 on: March 15, 2019, 12:01:22 pm »

https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=129534.msg1099940#msg1099940
The advice was clear ...

Cheers,
Bart
More assumptions. You have absolutely no idea the condition of the original rendered image from the raw.  Please, let the OP fully explain his workflow and let's advise him based on what he has and where he used it not just about the resampling that's a tiny part of an entire process.

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 #29 on: March 15, 2019, 01:34:55 pm »

I do not understand that LR and Photoshop, both from Adobe, use different sharpening techniques, while the Raw conversion is the same in both.
If it is clear that the methods used in LR are better, why aren't they implemented in Photoshop?
Is there some internal competiton ? Does it has to do with legal rights to the impkemented methods?
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2019, 01:52:12 pm »

More assumptions. You have absolutely no idea the condition of the original rendered image from the raw.  Please, let the OP fully explain his workflow and let's advise him based on what he has and where he used it not just about the resampling that's a tiny part of an entire process.

Well first of all I repeat that I agree with somebody here that the picture was not a great example. Again sorry about that

It is a picture 7360x4912 taken at ISO 3200 1/200 sec f/1.4 w/50mm NO STABILIZATION
The focus distance - to the point of the nose - was 0.71m.
That gives a DOF of 1.6 cm which could explain why the whiskers (and the rest) are soft (DOF 0.700 m - 0.716m)

My workflow:
Import the file to LR. In this case there were no adjustments, especially NO SHARPENING.
Export as TIF to PS

Resize to 800x534
Convert to 8 bits
Convert from ProPhoto to sRGB

Duplicate 2x (and save as three .jpg's: original - NIK - Photokit)
NO Capture Sharpening (wanted just a test on the behaviour when Output-Sharpening)
Sharpened with default values one w/ NIK Output Sharpener the other with PK (Superfine Edge Sharpen is the default)
That was it.

I opened all three, set the displays to 1:1 and arranged them vertically for examination.
I liked the unsharpened most, second came the PK and IMO Nik was the "most crunchy" of all.

I stress that I have no practical problems with that, since both versions let adjust themselves via layers
But I wanted to understand what happens and why and any possible drawbacks I am not aware of
Hope I didn't forget anything

Thanks for your patience  :)


Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2019, 05:06:28 pm »

I do not understand that LR and Photoshop, both from Adobe, use different sharpening techniques, while the Raw conversion is the same in both.
If it is clear that the methods used in LR are better, why aren't they implemented in Photoshop?
Is there some internal competiton ? Does it has to do with legal rights to the impkemented methods?
The data processed (especially raw data), the encoding of the data, the color space and it's TRC are different in both along with the algorithms.
LR uses high bit linear processing for all data in a wide gamut color space, PS may not (usually not for linearity). LR uses an adaptive sharpening algorithm not found in PS. LR of course can process raw data, Photoshop cannot. The two are simply different in many respects.
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 #32 on: March 15, 2019, 08:19:54 pm »

The data processed (especially raw data), the encoding of the data, the color space and it's TRC are different in both along with the algorithms.
LR uses high bit linear processing for all data in a wide gamut color space, PS may not (usually not for linearity). LR uses an adaptive sharpening algorithm not found in PS. LR of course can process raw data, Photoshop cannot. The two are simply different in many respects.

Photoshop ACR  processes raw data- i guess - that is the same engine as LR?
and the shapening procedures in it are the same? They read and like to process the same on the basis of the same XMP file.
If not i will not use photoshop ACR again...
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 08:26:52 pm by kers »
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2019, 08:23:48 pm »

Photoshop ACR  processes raw data- i guess - that is the same engine as LR?
and the shapening procedures in it are the same?
If not i will not use photoshop ACR again..
Yes, LR uses the same ACR engine and one can move back and forth if the two are on version parity.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

E. Dinur

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #34 on: March 16, 2019, 04:50:21 am »

Question for Andrew:
In his post above kers is muddying the waters by asking about LR's Develop Module sharpening and ACR (as transferred in the xmp) although the thread has been about comparing LR's Export/Resizing and Output Sharpening vs. PS's Resampling and output sharpening from another plugin.

However, (although I suspect it is rarely used) ACR does have the ability to send to PS a resized and output sharpened image, as accessed from the Workflow Options dialog(center screen, bottom), whose interface strongly resembles LR's Export page.

Can we assume that Workflow Options and Export are the same in these functions (aside from the difference that W.O. does not write a file to disc)?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 04:55:21 am by E. Dinur »
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2019, 09:45:44 am »

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.

The extra sharpening of digital is one of the things I like and don't like about it.  It's often too clinical looking and has the "soap opera" effect.  On the other hand, sometimes the really sharp looks adds to the image.  I know I have to add a lot of sharpening when I scan my medium format film shots.  But things seem to blend better with film.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #36 on: March 16, 2019, 09:57:01 am »

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%).

Interesting observation.  Never knew that.  Thanks for passing it on.

In my operation, I either use the cameras jpeg with no sharpening or let LR apply the initial "25" to RAW shots.  Then, for both types, I use LR's "sharpen for the Screen" when I output the processed image file.  I show my photos either on my 4K UHDTV, on the web, or on my desktop monitor. 

When I scan film, I sharpen the heck out of it in LR so minimally does the scanner do its job. ( I scan flat). 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #37 on: March 16, 2019, 10:00:26 am »

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?


2 and 3 look oversharpened to me.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Sharpening for the Web
« Reply #38 on: March 16, 2019, 11:32:09 am »

Question for Andrew:
In his post above kers is muddying the waters by asking about LR's Develop Module sharpening and ACR (as transferred in the xmp) although the thread has been about comparing LR's Export/Resizing and Output Sharpening vs. PS's Resampling and output sharpening from another plugin.

However, (although I suspect it is rarely used) ACR does have the ability to send to PS a resized and output sharpened image, as accessed from the Workflow Options dialog(center screen, bottom), whose interface strongly resembles LR's Export page.

Can we assume that Workflow Options and Export are the same in these functions (aside from the difference that W.O. does not write a file to disc)?
Again, if on version parity and using the identical settings, ACR and LR produce identical rendering of the data.
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 #39 on: March 16, 2019, 11:45:40 am »

..
In his post above kers is muddying the waters by asking about LR's Develop Module sharpening and ACR (as transferred in the xmp) although the thread has been about comparing LR's Export/Resizing and Output Sharpening vs. PS's Resampling and output sharpening from another plugin....

OK sorry for that....but became confused.
on topic: i use a combination of making the image smaller in a few steps -bicubic standard and adding some low sharpening here and then; it works well for me. I made it into an photoshop action.
so for instance  step1 : little sharpening-  8000px to 3940px  -  step2 little sharpening 3940px to 1920px.. export etc
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up