I need some help posting sharp pictures

[Grandpaw]

I have posted many pictures on the forums but never seem to get the detail of the original picture like some of you manage to do. I post the size of 800 for the large side and sharpen but they never seem to have the punch some of you achieve. I did a search because this has been discussed before many times but would one of you kind folks try to help me improve my ability to post a decent detailed picture. I am sure there are many more than myself that will appreciate your efforts. Thanks, Jeff

[Sushigaijin]

Jeff,

Tell us a bit about your workflow: when and how do you sharpen?

[Grandpaw]

I think this is how I do it, Jeff

Bring up picture in PhotoShop 7
Crop and bring up crop to fill screen
Make adjustments such as contrast and brightness
Sharpen, using unsharp mask
Change image size to 800 on long side
save as copy to location I choose
Adjust file size to quality 10 Maximum
click OK
Done

[Trevor Ash]

Sharpen as the final step, after any resizing of the image.

[Frog]

That's what I understand, too. Sharpening should be the last thing done.

[Ray Dockrey]

I would like to just say thanks for this tip. I never knew sharpening should be the very last thing you do. Does that go for noise reduction too? I am sorry if I am hijacking this thread. I promise no more questions.

[Axle]

Does that go for noise reduction too? I am sorry if I am hijacking this thread. I promise no more questions.

Usually I reduce the noise before sharpening.

[Grandpaw]

I would like to just say thanks for this tip. I never knew sharpening should be the very last thing you do. Does that go for noise reduction too? I am sorry if I am hijacking this thread. I promise no more questions.

Feel free to ask any questions that are on the subject. The only thing it will do is help anyone reading this thread learn and that is what this is all about, Jeff

[another view]

I don't usually do much with noise reduction, but I do it early on in the workflow. I'm not a scientific type, so if it bothers me as I look at it I deal with it... Agreed on sharpening always being the last step. And I don't save small jpegs at maximum - try 7 and you probably won't see any difference for web use.

[Medley]

There's a very scientific reason that you sharpen after resizing. The "radius" setting in the sharpen filter affects how many pixels are changed by the "amount" setting, counting outwards from the edge to be sharpened. Changing the size of the image after sharpening also changes the width of the sharpening halos, effectively changing the 'radius' setting.

- Joe U.

[mn shutterbug]

Thanks Grandpaw, for starting this thread. I always figured sharpening was the last thing I was doing, but I was actually resizing as my last step. I just went in and resharpened a few, and it made a heck of a difference.

[another view]

One other thought, different shots will take different amounts of sharpening considering all of the options (threshold, radius, amount - or whatever they're called...). Scott Kelby's book has a whole chapter on it with different techniques to try. He gives starting point settings you might try depending on the subject, but it's definitely not a one-size-fits-all type of thing.

[Franglais]

Now you got me worried. I don't do anything:

1. Correct the RAW file in NX2 (exposure, curves, etc)
2. Generate a full definition JPG with NX2 which I store offline. This is my final result for printing
3. Generate a 800x600 (about) JPG from the full definition JPG with ACDSee. This is a low definition image which I keep online in My Images on my desktop. It's enough to show people on-screen and it doesn't take much space
4. Post the occasional 800x600 JPG on Photographyreview straight from My Images

Perhaps ACDSee sharpens the image during the resize? I've noticed it "improves" the image on display so that the pixels are less obvious.

[Grandpaw]

Thanks Grandpaw, for starting this thread. I always figured sharpening was the last thing I was doing, but I was actually resizing as my last step. I just went in and resharpened a few, and it made a heck of a difference.

Mike, I just realized that I am doing the same thing as you were. I am sharpening my phots and then resizing. That is even how it is listed in the reply the steps I use when posting. I will try and resize first then sharpen and see how it works, Jeff

Picture below I think is done the right way, so lets see how it looks. Well I tried it and I don't think it looks that great. I must still not have the proper technique.

[starriderrick]

Mike, I just realized that I am doing the same thing as you were. I am sharpening my photos and then resizing. That is even how it is listed in the reply the steps I use when posting. I will try and resize first then sharpen and see how it works, Jeff

Picture below I think is done the right way, so lets see how it looks. Well I tried it and I don't think it looks that great. I must still not have the proper technique.

Hi Jeff,
First thing I would like to know...What in-camera sharpness setting are you using for your in-camera pic control?. i.e. vivid mode.
I use 8, sometimes 9. Default is 5... I believe.
I edited this image,I'm no PP pro. used the following settings. Hi-pass filter 100% (this is just a treatment), In my opinion... a more pleasing sky,foreground water color as a result. Darkened 10%,increased contrast,saturation 10%. That's off topic so...__>The main issue here is sharpness so as my final step Un-sharp mask. b.t.w. I used nikon Capture NX.
--Unsharp mask: Intensity 15 / Radius 10 / Threshhold 0
It's important that we know where the camera is set at to offer viable advice...in my opinion.

Rick

[freygr]

Hi Jeff,
First thing I would like to know...What in-camera sharpness setting are you using for your in-camera pic control?. i.e. vivid mode.
I use 8, sometimes 9. Default is 5... I believe.
I edited this image,I'm no PP pro. used the following settings. Hi-pass filter 100% (this is just a treatment), In my opinion... a more pleasing sky,foreground water color as a result. Darkened 10%,increased contrast,saturation 10%. That's off topic so...__>The main issue here is sharpness so as my final step Un-sharp mask. b.t.w. I used nikon Capture NX.
--Unsharp mask: Intensity 15 / Radius 10 / Threshhold 0
It's important that we know where the camera is set at to offer viable advice...in my opinion.

Rick

My feel is the edited photo is washed out on the left side. I did not see any thing wrong with the posted photo.

I burr(Gaussian 7x7) the image then resize the image to 800 pixels on the long dimension. Resizing is like using the unsharp mask and by using the Gaussian burr it helps prevents Morrie patterns and being over sharppen when it's resized.

[Trevor Ash]

Respectfully, I don't think the editing attempt that was posted is going to help Grandpaw. Perhaps if it was limited to only showing a sharpening demonstration...

Grandpaw, the image you posted looks soft. Was it handheld? Autofocus? Manual Focus?

Rick is right that we need more info. But I have seen enough photos to be able to tell when the original was soft to begin with.

I would say, find what you believe is your sharpest photo you've ever taken (without edits) then post the full size original somewhere where we can download and experiment with it. Then also post your own sharpened version of the photo. From there we can talk shop and probably find a few ways to improve or new ideas to try.

[Sushigaijin]

For web images I usually sharpen twice. After ALL the other edits are done, I sharpen (smart sharpen in CS3) with a radius of 5-10 px at roughly 25 or 30 percent. Then I resize to 640x480 and sharpen again at about 0.4 px and 25 to 30 percent. Every shot is a little different.

IMO, with my camera/lenses and shooting RAW, this gives a good result without being over sharpened. It is a fairly conservative workflow though and sometimes I feel it undersharpens a bit.

[AgingEyes]

The original pic posted by Jeff is pretty good in terms of sharpness. I find Rick's a bit too sharp and the colors seem to have altered, too.

If you have to reduce noise, do it first. As for if sharpening is only needed once and that is in the last step of the whole process, there's some discussions out there and some will and have argued that sharpening is not to be done once and only once during the whole process.

Myself, I sharpen the raw file once before converting to jpeg. In jpeg, after finishing whatever I want to do with the image, I resize and sharpen the image in LAB using smart sharpen. Then change the profile from LAB back to jpeg. There, I apply a small degree of high pass filter again to sharpen selectively to get the final result.

[Medley]

Jeff, do you mind if I edit and repost the pic, in order to show you a few basic techniques, and to explain how to avoid problems some of the others have touched on?

- Joe U.

[freygr]

I've noticed that the settings used during resizing large to small do have a large affect on the image. There are many different programs which can be used. Usually the default settings are good, and down sizing will sharpen the image anyway. If the image during resizing doesn't sharpen the program's settings are not set correctly or it's just a bad install or the tool is bad.

[Grandpaw]

Jeff, do you mind if I edit and repost the pic, in order to show you a few basic techniques, and to explain how to avoid problems some of the others have touched on?

- Joe U.

Anyone that wants to re post this and edit it to help me out, feel free to to do it and let me know how you did it. I also successfully uploaded the original file of a sandhill crane that hasn't been touched but I cannot find it in my gallery. By the way I am using Photoshop 7 and have just gotten Lightroom II, Jeff

[Medley]

Ok, so first I got out my trusty ruler to measure the width of the image as my screen displayed it, and got 7and 7/8 inches. Downloading the image off the forum, I find that it is 800 pixels wide, so that's approximately 100 ppi display resolution.

I do this, even with my own images, for two reasons. First, I want to make sure that the image wasn't resized when it was uploaded to the site ( just because YOU didn't resize the image after sharpening doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't resized, eh?). Second, matching my monitor's resolution to the display resolution of the image will allow me to actually eyeball the amount of sharpening needed, rather than simply guessing.

Now, my display is 14.5 inches wide, so switching from my usual display resolution of 1680x1050 to 1440x852 will give me as close to 100 dpi resolution as my monitor will allow. Mind you, to make it all work, I'll also have to set Photoshop's view to 100% (actual pixels). If I were to set it to 50% for example, PS would display only every other pixel, changing the effective resolution of the on-screen image to 200 dpi.

Now that I have my resolution set properly, we can open the image and get down to business. First I duplicate the background layer to do the sharpening on it's own layer. There's lots of good reasons for this, not the least of which is that if I completely mess things up, I can always get back to the original. Now, I have read (and experience bears this out) that sharpening halos which are 1/100th of an inch wide provide adequate sharpening, but are still too small to detect with the human eye. Now, a radius of 1 pixel doesn't mean that your sharpening halos will be 1 pixel wide ( Photoshop was developed by engineers, not photographers) but it does provide us with a good starting point, and the halos vary directly with the radius setting.

So, I go to Unsharp Mask, using a Threshold of 2 pixels ( I very rarely ever stray from a 2 pixel threshold, except in special cases) a Radius of 1.0 pixels, and adjusting the amount until it looks good on screen. But there's a problem- no matter how much amount I use, the image still looks soft. So I reset the Radius to 1.1 pixels and try again. This time I stop at an amount of about 180%. Here's the result:



Not bad, from the standpoint of sharpness. However, the image has been significantly brightened, and a fair amount of the colors have been washed out. There's a reason for this, and it underscores one of the main disadvantages of the Unsharp Mask filter: USM applies the most sharpening to the edges with the highest contrast, and the least amount of sharpening to the edges with the lowest contrast. That means that the sharpest edges get the most sharpening, and vice versa. We need to reverse that.

Fixing that requires undoing our sharpen command to get back square one with our sharpening layer. Then click the eyeball on the background layer to turn off the visibility. Next, go to Layer> Layer Style> Blending Options. You'll see a screen that looks like this,



except that the markers on the 'this layer' slider will look exactly like the ones on the 'underlying layer' slider. This is their default position. Working on the 'this layer' slider, if you click on the right slider, and move it towards the center, you will start seeing the brightest pixels in your image become transparent (Note: if the pixels don't become transparent, you haven't turned off the background layer). If you alt-click (Mac: Option-click) the slider, you can split the sliders.

So, what does it mean? look at the sliders, and the settings I've used: Photoshop is showing no pixels whose brightness is below 25. Between 25 and 40, PS is feathering the opacity between 0% (25) and 100%(40). Pixels with brightnesses between 40 and 177 are at 100% opacity, between 177 and 205 the opacity tapers back to 0%, and all pixels brighter than 205 are removed. So now, when we apply the sharpen command to this layer, the sharpening will be confined mostly to the mid-tones. In Photoshop circles, it's known as a mid-level contrast boost. The important thing I want you to understand is that I got to the settings by watching which pixels became transparent as I moved the slider. It's something of an acquired skill, and the settings will be different for each image. The nice thing is the sliders don't change. You can do your sharpening, decide that it looks wrong, go back to the Blending Options screen, and pick up where you left off.

But it's important to make that initial guess at the settings, because removing the lightest and darkest pixels will change the amount of sharpening we use. You find it substantially higher. In the next image, I used the slider settings shown above, with a Radius of 1.3 pixels, and an Amount of 200%:



As you can see, a fair amount of the brightness has been toned down. The left side looks less washed out, and the texture on the roof and walls of the buildings has been brought out. But there's still a bit of color shift that we can do something about- and it's fairly easi;y done: simply change the blend mode of the sharpened layer to 'Luminosity':



You'll notice it most in the forground flowers and foilage. This is something of a tradeoff- getting some of the color back reduces the sharpening effect to a degree. My personal opinion is that it works sometimes, not so well others. In this instance, I think it works.

And there's still more that you COULD do. With the sharpening on it's own layer, you could reduce the opacity to back off the entire effect, or you could add a layer mask and use a black brush at a low opacity to reduce the sharpening in certain areas. But all of that is a matter of personal taste, so I'll leave it to you.

So, to review:

Find the ppi of the image. If you haven't posted the image yet, assume a ppi of around 100-115.

Match your screen resolution to the ppi of the image (as closely as possible).

Limit the effect of sharpening in the high contrast areas by using the Blending Options menu.

Use a Threshold of 2, a Radius of 1/100th the ppi, and adjust the amount until the image looks sharp.

Try the Luminosity blend mode to see what you think.

Use opacity/ layer masks to tweak the results to taste.

If you have questions Jeff, just ask.

- Joe U.

[Trevor Ash]

The posted image is soft to begin with. Whether that's caused by poor resizing algorithms, improper technique when the photo was taken, or the equipment used to take the photo, I wouldn't know.

That's why I asked for the sharpest unedited picture you could find and post that along with a sharpened version of the same photo using your own techniques.

From my perspective I see the OP asking why his images aren't posting "sharp" and we're all jumping to the conclusion that it's because of post processing. But I am not convinced that's the case with this one specific photo.

I have never found a need to go to such extents as changing monitor resolution to achieve a specific PPI on my screen. I find just viewing the image at 100% zoom is all that's necessary. I'm not saying there isn't a benefit, as I have never tried those techniques.

[Grandpaw]

Joe, thanks for the detailed explanation of what you did. I am going to have to go over your post several times with a picture to figure it out. I am not very knowledgeable on Photoshop.

Rick sent me a PM about the settings in my camera and I think he has figured out the problem. I will try and go out today and see if changing the setting fixes the problem and I will post what I find out.I will try and post some pictures later on today, Jeff