Does everyone sharpen?

Ricky91t

Hey all,

I posted this on the talkphotography forum and the results were quite surprising!

Anywho, I'm wondering is it any different on boards :pac:

So here's the post:

Hey all,

After spending a while browsing and posting on here today, A lot of people sharpen their images by default it seems..

I for one, am a photographer who loves sharp images straight off my camera and any images which aren't to a standard of sharpness that pleases me( obviously hugely different between each 'tog) are usually not even considered, be it for a paid job, for possible sales or just for fun..

I rarely sharpen images unless I only have one of a said scene and I want to show it to others..

What about everyone else?

Covey

Sharpening and sharpness or not relatives

smelltheglove

I voted yes but Im more in between, I sharpen a high quantity but with wedding images often the images look better soft so it really depends on the image.

Ricky91t

Covey wrote: »

Sharpening and sharpness or not relatives

Sorry Covey, but you lost me there. :pac:

mikeanywhere

Every image is sharpened.

Some more than others depending on output size and as Smell mentioned earlier, the subject too. Most importantly though, it's also absed on if the moon is in eclipse and if the Mars bar I am eating is stale or not ..............

Tactical

Generally I find I have to sharpen most images, even those shot in studio using a tripod and remote release with mirror lock up.

Some images more so than others but then again I'm finding Canon to produce soft images even with L-series glass :mad: I guess I'm wanting too much expecting sharp images off the camera.

stcstc

every image shot in raw needs both contrast and sharpening

hbr

I voted yes, although this answer isn't absolutely true. Yes/No/Sometimes would have been a better list of options.

I store images in raw format and I find that they usually benefit from a slight sharpening. 18 to 24 on the Gimp sharpen slider is usually enough. If I feel the need to use a higher level of sharpening, I try to confine it to specific areas rather than sharpening the entire image.

magicbastarder

i don't think i ever sharpen the full res ones. i've sharpened some shots which have been reduced to post on here once or twice.

sineadw

stcstc wrote: »

every image shot in raw needs both contrast and sharpening

What he said. By default, all images that need to be sharp *should* be sharpened. That and a levels adjustment to make sure there's no funky colour stuff going on. Mind you now, if it was taken with the holga lens or the lensbaby then no I don't bother. Kind of defeats the purpose.

Thecageyone

When I used to shoot in jpeg, I found I had to process the hell out of my images to bring them up to standard. Now I shoot in RAW, the processing is finer, more detailed, but nowhere near as much of it. But I definitely sharpen where needed, I presumed everyone did.

The main sliders I use in LR are - Clarity, contrast, vibrance, sharpness, Luminance NR - and the highlight/light/dark/shadow sliders.

For B&W the HSL section too.

Covey

I sharpen every photo.... twice. If it's for printing I sharpen 2/3 times more than for the web.

As Steve said every RAW photo needs it, though some cameras can be set to do it in camera, though I never use that so don't know how effective it is.

stcstc

i wasnt aware that the sharpening would affect the raw, as the raw is the bare data from the sensor

i think the sharpening will only affect the jpg

Covey

Your right Steve!

Covey

Ricky91t wrote: »

Sorry Covey, but you lost me there. :pac:

Sharpness is somthing you get from a combination of lens and technique.

Sharpening is something you need to correct on digital files.

Thecageyone

stcstc wrote: »

i wasnt aware that the sharpening would affect the raw, as the raw is the bare data from the sensor

i think the sharpening will only affect the jpg

Not sure about other programs but in Lightroom you're processing the RAW file including sharpening, only when exported is it converted to Jpeg. But, maybe the changes you see on the RAW file are only cosmetic and really only takes effect on the jpeg?

stcstc

sorry what i ment was the in camera sharpening only affects anything when you shoot jpg

Ballyman

I'd try to sharpen images when I think of it! I forget to sharpen them most of the time when processing them. I don't really understand it anyway - unsharp mask/sharpen/edge sharpen etc. etc???? WTF does it mean?

To be honest at small sizes like viewing on the web etc. I can't see the difference between a sharpened and unsharpened image.

ianflynn

I dont sharpen.
Im not that good at PP yet.
have cs4 and lightroom but im only getting my head around them lately.

Thecageyone

Both in lightroom and Cs4 you can see the effects of sharpening Live as you move the sliders. Unsharp mask is a funny name, but it's basically sharpening By default maybe it's set to certain levels so you can bring them down and un-sharpen, but I think most use it to up the sharpness.

Here's a quick example of what sharpening does, basically:



RAW image straight off camera, zoomed in on the eye, a good place to select for sharpening portraits - a boost of clarity would have brought out more detail and I'd not have had to boost the sharpening that much, usually don't. But the eyes were a little soft in this one, good for an example. You can see it can be fairly effective.

stcstc

a good method for sharpening is guy gowans method

the adobe unsharp mask by itself isnt great (there is no mask part)

guy uses a mask and then applies unsharp mask

i use the same method, means i can sharpen every image in the same way

as sharpening is about fixing deficencies in your camera, it should in theory be the same ammount every time, as the defeciancies dont change

sharpening is not about fixing defeciancies in your photography


remember a digital camera is just a portable photocopier, you then have to fix any limitations of the photocopier

Covey

stcstc wrote: »

as sharpening is about fixing deficencies in your camera, it should in theory be the same ammount every time, as the defeciancies dont change

That sound logical in theory, but I've not found that to be true. The make up of a photograph does have a bearing on it.

I have a standard sharpening I use - first pass and then a second pass that can vary depending on the shot.

AnimalRights

The more experienced I get the less sharpening I use*
In LR3 you def should sharpen than less half the slider it's very different to LR2.
Steve aka STCSTC is pretty correct too about Raw neededing to be sharpened.

*Obviously I've also learned to use less camera shake which does tie in with less sharpening

Thecageyone

Yeah if I do it in Cs4, I use a similar method to the one stcstc suggests, but only because the default sharpening tools in photoshop are ... well, crap. I find the one in lightroom good for portraits and building edges mostly, probably not so great for landscape/broader image work.

All cameras tend to be a little soft upon close inspection, my old bridge cam was terrible for softness. At least the dslr images have the finer detail to stand up to extra processing.

DaireQuinlan

stcstc wrote: »

the adobe unsharp mask by itself isnt great (there is no mask part)

so far as I remember, unsharp mask is so named because it's derived from an darkroom technique in which you'd actually make an blurred positive from your negative, composite it with your negative, and use it to pre-flash your paper before the exposure.

http://photocritic.org/darkroom-unsharp-mask/

smelltheglove

I use Guy Gowans method and find it great. I just run the action and reduce opacity as required, best I've ever seen tbh.

sineadw

I think the problem with unsharp mask is that a lot of people don't really understand how to use it. I didn't fully understand the concepts behind radius and threshold until relatively recently. And plus I think a lot of people do it far too early in processing. It really should be the very last thing you do - fecks the image up otherwise.

sineadw

And anyway, sharpness is overrated :P

stcstc

yes is should be dont after the images is at the print size

and threshold is useless - its adobe not understanding it properly

unsharp mask comes from the old days of drum scanning on huge machines where it was done right

what adobe tried to do was mimic this, but got the threshold wrong

the method i use is

create a mask using chanels of what i dont want to sharpen (eg blue sky in a landscape photo) and then sharpen everything else at 500% and a radius of 1.6 (based on the camera i use)

i do this on a copy layer and adjust the opacity if i want to weaken the sharpening

sineadw

But the amount of sharpening needed is also relative to the amount of detail in the photo, so surely you shouldn't use the same numbers for every photo?

I use threshold on a mask for selective sharpening of skin tones - works brilliantly for me

stcstc

nope use the same figures for every one, then adjust the opacity, using a series of buttons in 10% increments

means i can sharpen a huge amount of images in a very short space of time

Tactical

The image on the left is generally what I'm coming up with. So perhaps this is the norm? I just always thought it was my dslr that was at fault.

Oh yeah, I generally shoot RAW except when iages are needed really quickly when I'll shoot RAW + JPEG.

RCNPhotos

Every image whether for print or web. Unsharp mask, a radius of 1 and then an amount varying between 30 - 60 depending on the image.

Thecageyone

I could never stick to the same levels, each image gets a unique by-eye treatment from me.

MaggyM

I shoot everything in RAW, so yes I would sharpen most images, depending on the type of shot, lens etc.

When I do sharpen, I use the High Pass sharpen method in PS (under 'Filter>Other'), on an layer with 'Overlay' blending mode. That way you can increase/decrease the opacity on that layer and play around with it according to the image. I don't know if its the best way but it works well for me.

mikeanywhere

MaggyM wrote: »

I don't know if its the best way but it works well for me.

You have hit the nail on the head. Everyone does something that works best for them

homerun_homer

How do you sharpen your RAW files because I've never seen any difference when I toggle the sliders on the Sharpening option and therefore have never used them. Last night for example I was editing photos and moved all the sliders to the far right expecting there to be an exaggeration of sorts but nothing changed.

Am I doing something wrong or do I need an eye exam?

nilhg

homerun_homer wrote: »

How do you sharpen your RAW files because I've never seen any difference when I toggle the sliders on the Sharpening option and therefore have never used them. Last night for example I was editing photos and moved all the sliders to the far right expecting there to be an exaggeration of sorts but nothing changed.

Am I doing something wrong or do I need an eye exam?

If you moved all the sliders all the way right you'd have masked all the image and therefore sharpened nothing.:D


EDIT: good explanation of sharpening in Lightroom here

Thecageyone

homerun_homer wrote: »

How do you sharpen your RAW files because I've never seen any difference when I toggle the sliders on the Sharpening option and therefore have never used them. Last night for example I was editing photos and moved all the sliders to the far right expecting there to be an exaggeration of sorts but nothing changed.

Am I doing something wrong or do I need an eye exam?

I notice changes immediately when sharpening in LR. The masking slider shouldn't be touched until very last, and only if really needed. By shoving them all up, you masked it 100% therefore covering all tracks of sharpening really. Zoom in, pick a good spot and sharpen in small steps, if you don't see any difference it's either your eyes or the live changes aren't being displayed in your Lightroom.

Good tutorial right there, a few wee tips I never tried.