RyanEustace
Ecology Student
I have been looking at some different ways of sharpening images on the web (high pass, unsharp mask..), and was wondering what have you found to be the best technique to sharpen your images?
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
What method do you use to sharpen your images on photoshop (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter RyanEustace
- Start date
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Heh! There are whole books on sharpening techniques - this could turn into a long discussion!
It really depends on the intended output of the image, the software in use and - to a large extent - how sharp the image is to start with.
It also matters which camera - I've known for a long time that my 7D takes sharpening much better than cameras with lower pixel densities, and actually needs different levels of sharpening than (say) my 40D does.
For what it's worth, the most important thing I've found with regard to sharpening is to apply it selectively: I always apply sharpening on a layer, then erase it from the parts of the image (the background, the sky) where I don't want it. That way you can be surprisingly aggressive with sharpening it you need to be.
Something I've noticed on numerous occasions - and I find it now - is that the sharpening algorithms that are provided in noise reduction software plug-ins are often (to my eyes) more satisfying than the well-known sharpening tools in Photoshop like USM and even Smart Sharpening: so I do most of my sharpening (having done light capture sharpening on conversion from RAW to tiff) with the "Reduce Blur" slider in the Topaz DeNoise NR plug-in.
It just seems to produce what to my eyes is a more natural result than the "official" sharpening tools - still applied on a layer and then erased from where it isn't needed.
Are you using Paint Shop Pro by any chance, Ryan (the sharpening options you mention are both present in their own right as PSP tools)?
If so, try the "Focus" tool in the (IIRC) "Adjust > Photo Fix" sub menu - I loved it when I used PSP.
Added: Ah - just looked again at the title of your post!
There's as many "best" ways to sharpen as there are photographers, but my approach definitely works for me. I should say that I don't like a sharpened look to my images, I like 'em to look natural.
(All handheld, Canon 7D and 100-400mm lens):
It really depends on the intended output of the image, the software in use and - to a large extent - how sharp the image is to start with.
It also matters which camera - I've known for a long time that my 7D takes sharpening much better than cameras with lower pixel densities, and actually needs different levels of sharpening than (say) my 40D does.
For what it's worth, the most important thing I've found with regard to sharpening is to apply it selectively: I always apply sharpening on a layer, then erase it from the parts of the image (the background, the sky) where I don't want it. That way you can be surprisingly aggressive with sharpening it you need to be.
Something I've noticed on numerous occasions - and I find it now - is that the sharpening algorithms that are provided in noise reduction software plug-ins are often (to my eyes) more satisfying than the well-known sharpening tools in Photoshop like USM and even Smart Sharpening: so I do most of my sharpening (having done light capture sharpening on conversion from RAW to tiff) with the "Reduce Blur" slider in the Topaz DeNoise NR plug-in.
It just seems to produce what to my eyes is a more natural result than the "official" sharpening tools - still applied on a layer and then erased from where it isn't needed.
Are you using Paint Shop Pro by any chance, Ryan (the sharpening options you mention are both present in their own right as PSP tools)?
If so, try the "Focus" tool in the (IIRC) "Adjust > Photo Fix" sub menu - I loved it when I used PSP.
Added: Ah - just looked again at the title of your post!
There's as many "best" ways to sharpen as there are photographers, but my approach definitely works for me. I should say that I don't like a sharpened look to my images, I like 'em to look natural.
(All handheld, Canon 7D and 100-400mm lens):
Attachments
Last edited:
RyanEustace
Ecology Student
Hi keith
I only have Photoshop CS5, so i have only used the sharpening tools it has to offer. I used to use unsharp mask but like you mentioned it isn't specific and creates alot of noise in the skies etc., but i was wondering if there are any other methods specific to Photoshop, or with the use of pluggins which are available.
1) The original raw file, processed but no sharpening.
2) Same raw file but sharpened using high pass, duplicate layer, filter>other>high pass, adjust radius until there is barely and detail visible click ok, go to layers select overlay.
3)Same raw file again, sharpened by following this video
4)Same raw file, sharpened in camera raw by pressing alt and sliding the mask slider till only the bird was in the image, then increasing sharpening till happy
Out of all of them I'd say high pass was probably the worst, I like the way the YouTube video works, and does produce good results, please bear in mind these images are heavy crops. If any one has a different way of doing it please do tell.
I only have Photoshop CS5, so i have only used the sharpening tools it has to offer. I used to use unsharp mask but like you mentioned it isn't specific and creates alot of noise in the skies etc., but i was wondering if there are any other methods specific to Photoshop, or with the use of pluggins which are available.
1) The original raw file, processed but no sharpening.
2) Same raw file but sharpened using high pass, duplicate layer, filter>other>high pass, adjust radius until there is barely and detail visible click ok, go to layers select overlay.
3)Same raw file again, sharpened by following this video
4)Same raw file, sharpened in camera raw by pressing alt and sliding the mask slider till only the bird was in the image, then increasing sharpening till happy
Out of all of them I'd say high pass was probably the worst, I like the way the YouTube video works, and does produce good results, please bear in mind these images are heavy crops. If any one has a different way of doing it please do tell.
Attachments
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
How did you convert from RAW, Ryan? I see strange artifacts in the transition from bird to background in the first image which will be accentuated by any sharpening, so we'd want to find a way to avoid them.
RyanEustace
Ecology Student
I opened them up using bridge, then opened them up in photoshop, cropped the original one, and then just saved it as a high quality jpeg so as the file size was small enough to upload onto here. The original file was heavily cropped so as you could see the effect of the different sharpening processes.
Attachments
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
My method of sharpening is to do all the processing first (levels/curves etc) and then sharpen at full size before downsizing for web use.In CS2 i will use Unsharp Mask at Amount-200%,Pixels-0.5,and Threshold-0.After downsizing I will then go back into Unsharp Mask at Amount-200%,Pixels-0.2 and Threshold again at 0.
Everyone has their personal preference and this one works for me.The attached pic of my dog gives the unsharpened image on the left and the sharpened image using the above settings on the right.
This is the settings I use for uploading to the web.Sharpening for printing can be entirely different depending on subject matter.
Hope this helps.
Mike.
Everyone has their personal preference and this one works for me.The attached pic of my dog gives the unsharpened image on the left and the sharpened image using the above settings on the right.
This is the settings I use for uploading to the web.Sharpening for printing can be entirely different depending on subject matter.
Hope this helps.
Mike.
Attachments
RyanEustace
Ecology Student
So let me see if I've got this right, you use unsharp mask at 200% down size and then do the same again. Unsharp mask sharpens the entire image, so surely you'd have alot of noise in the skies?, do you then use noise reduction software to compensate for this?
mike from ebbw
Well-known member
Its not 200% image size but 200% sharpening amount in the unsharp mask window.I sharpen the full size image (ie,straight out of the camera) and again after downsizing for web use.Depending on your iso you wont get a lot of noise unless you over sharpen which I havent done here.Noise is usually more visible in shadow areas but providing you expose correctly and take care not to over process an image modern cameras deal with noise very well.
I do use noise reduction (the one in CS2) on some images but usually as a layer mask.I will then erase the main subject (bird) from the layer as noise filters can take away a lot of feather detail.I then just flatten the layers.This can also help in dropping the end filesize allowing you to save it at a higher quality.
RyanEustace
Ecology Student
Ahh right i see, i shall try it that way and see if i have any luck
To reiterate what Keith has said, you shouldn't apply the same sharpening to the whole image. In large "blank" areas, the sky, shadows and any defocused background and foreground you don't really want any.
Apply your sharpening technique to a duplicate layer then use a layer mask to exclude the areas you want left alone. You can even use this apply different sharpenings to different areas of the image. I would use a layer mask rather than selectively erasing the sharpened layer as it gives you reversibility and allows you to feather the edges.
You should also bear in mind that images intended to be printed will need more sharpening than those for screen use, so much so that they can look "wrong" on screen.
In what ever process you use there is no magic set of numbers to put in the filter to get the best result, different images will have a different sharpness to begin with and each subject will need to different amount of tweaking to achieve the result you desire. Plus what you see as right for the image is different from what others might see.
It is much more art than science. Take tips from others and practise, practise, practise; play about with settings and filters and see what changes to what sliders achieve what effect.
Apply your sharpening technique to a duplicate layer then use a layer mask to exclude the areas you want left alone. You can even use this apply different sharpenings to different areas of the image. I would use a layer mask rather than selectively erasing the sharpened layer as it gives you reversibility and allows you to feather the edges.
You should also bear in mind that images intended to be printed will need more sharpening than those for screen use, so much so that they can look "wrong" on screen.
In what ever process you use there is no magic set of numbers to put in the filter to get the best result, different images will have a different sharpness to begin with and each subject will need to different amount of tweaking to achieve the result you desire. Plus what you see as right for the image is different from what others might see.
It is much more art than science. Take tips from others and practise, practise, practise; play about with settings and filters and see what changes to what sliders achieve what effect.
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
LAB sharpening has never really amazed me the way I thought/hoped it would: I've done numerous side-by-side tests of files sharpened in LAB mode and in RGB, and - for the life of me - I can't see any benefit.
But I know that Nigel Blake and others swear by it, so I'm certainly not dismissing it - I just wish that I could see the advantages others see.
Still, I suppose this means that my way of doing things is working..!
But I know that Nigel Blake and others swear by it, so I'm certainly not dismissing it - I just wish that I could see the advantages others see.
Still, I suppose this means that my way of doing things is working..!
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
I think sharpness is in the eye of the beholder especially for web images, the monitor plays a big part both in processing and viewing. Up to about nine months ago I was using a calibrated CRT, I then got a LCD (also calibrated) and the difference is enormous. Just about all the shots I processed on the CRT now look over sharpened on the LCD.
Nowadays I often see images from very good photographers where the images look way over sharpened to me (although they do not contain the dreaded halo) - I suspect that they think mine are probably soft :eek!:
I have often get comments on one of my shots where some people reckon it is over sharpened but others think it could do with a tad more sharpening !!!!.
At the end of the day I guess if the individual is happy with their own sharpening then that' is all that matters, there is no right or wrong method IMO.
The following image which I took a few days ago was thought to be over-sharpened by some on one forum although I am happy with it.
Nowadays I often see images from very good photographers where the images look way over sharpened to me (although they do not contain the dreaded halo) - I suspect that they think mine are probably soft :eek!:
I have often get comments on one of my shots where some people reckon it is over sharpened but others think it could do with a tad more sharpening !!!!.
At the end of the day I guess if the individual is happy with their own sharpening then that' is all that matters, there is no right or wrong method IMO.
The following image which I took a few days ago was thought to be over-sharpened by some on one forum although I am happy with it.
Attachments
Last edited:
Keith Reeder
Watch the birdie...
Oh aye, sharpening is very subjective.
I still think my approach holds its own, and do I like the natural look I get: http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=321773&d=1304180818
I still think my approach holds its own, and do I like the natural look I get: http://www.birdforum.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=321773&d=1304180818
Roy C
Occasional bird snapper
This is what it is all about - what other think is irrelevant (unless you are a pro and selling your work).
Julian H
Well-known member
sharpening
I'm with Mono on a general scale. I'll try to keep this brief, since it's a topic that can go, and go and go.
Sharpening is a context thing for me. Selective sharpening techniques (using layer masks) will keep the introduction of noise and other artefacts to a minimum.
Sharpening should be the last step in your workflow and done on a duplicate layer prior to output. The reason is that depending on your final size (an 11 x 14 print or a 600 pixel web jpeg) each file will need a different amount of sharpening. I never sharpen in RAW preferring the control of PS after conversion. I used to add a small bit of sharpening to counteract the in-camera softening, but to be honest, I find that the benefits are neglible. PS algorithms are really good and typically do it in one pass. Practising with different amounts is key.
The main question is what is the final destination of the image? Comparing your screen image to the final print or the published photo in a magazine will tell you if your on-screen images need more or less sharpening. And, don't forget we are often looking at images at pixel level (100%). Prints are rather forgiving and you can usually get away with a tad bit of oversharpening because the halftone process in commercial printing softens the image a little. If the image looks a little crunchy at 100% Actual view, it's OK for me.
Don't sharpen sky..add a layer mask with a gaussian blur 1.0 pixels to avoid harsh lines between bird and sky and to provide a nice smooth background.
Or, duplicate the background layer
sharpen the whole image
add a layer mask filled with black to hide the effect then
paint on the mask with white to reveal the sharpening in selected areas.
After sharpening, I often run a high-pass filter too.
Duplicate the background layer,
run hipass filter set to a radius of 2-3 pixels,
change the blend mode of this layer to overlay and reduce opacity to about 40%.
This bumps the mid-tone contrast to give the image a nice 'pop' without introducing any sharpening artefacts.
If saving for web, I will resize to 600 pixels wide at 72 and then run a smart sharpen filter set to radius 96, amount 3, threshold 0.
I've experimented with many ways and find that with practice and a bit of skill there is little difference in the final printed pieces. The above works for me.
I'm with Mono on a general scale. I'll try to keep this brief, since it's a topic that can go, and go and go.
Sharpening is a context thing for me. Selective sharpening techniques (using layer masks) will keep the introduction of noise and other artefacts to a minimum.
Sharpening should be the last step in your workflow and done on a duplicate layer prior to output. The reason is that depending on your final size (an 11 x 14 print or a 600 pixel web jpeg) each file will need a different amount of sharpening. I never sharpen in RAW preferring the control of PS after conversion. I used to add a small bit of sharpening to counteract the in-camera softening, but to be honest, I find that the benefits are neglible. PS algorithms are really good and typically do it in one pass. Practising with different amounts is key.
The main question is what is the final destination of the image? Comparing your screen image to the final print or the published photo in a magazine will tell you if your on-screen images need more or less sharpening. And, don't forget we are often looking at images at pixel level (100%). Prints are rather forgiving and you can usually get away with a tad bit of oversharpening because the halftone process in commercial printing softens the image a little. If the image looks a little crunchy at 100% Actual view, it's OK for me.
Don't sharpen sky..add a layer mask with a gaussian blur 1.0 pixels to avoid harsh lines between bird and sky and to provide a nice smooth background.
Or, duplicate the background layer
sharpen the whole image
add a layer mask filled with black to hide the effect then
paint on the mask with white to reveal the sharpening in selected areas.
After sharpening, I often run a high-pass filter too.
Duplicate the background layer,
run hipass filter set to a radius of 2-3 pixels,
change the blend mode of this layer to overlay and reduce opacity to about 40%.
This bumps the mid-tone contrast to give the image a nice 'pop' without introducing any sharpening artefacts.
If saving for web, I will resize to 600 pixels wide at 72 and then run a smart sharpen filter set to radius 96, amount 3, threshold 0.
I've experimented with many ways and find that with practice and a bit of skill there is little difference in the final printed pieces. The above works for me.
Last edited:
