My Unsharp Mask technique

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message ...
"Tom Nelson" wrote in message
m.invalid...
On already high-contrast edges which are haloed, try removing the halo
with the History brush. This preserves the sharpening in the more
subtle areas.

But then halo can be almost avoided to begin with...
It can be used to only compensate for image chain (fine detail) contrast
losses (including those in output).

With Photoshop it is trivially simple to add a sharpened version layer, with
adjusted luminocity blending behavior. With that, the clipping that could be
caused by sharpening is never applied, while mid-tones of your choice get
the appropriate contrast boost to make up for losses.
As an example one can start with this:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/d...sharpening.png .
Small radius sharpening should be (mainly) applied on the
Luminance/Luminocity of the image, to avoid color artifacts. The opacity of
such a sharpening layer can be varied for the intended output.

Bart

I reviewed and tried all of the suggestions about putting the
sharpening effect only on a special layer in Photoshop, also the ones
about converting from RGB to LAB colour before writing my guide. I
personally decided not to try to include them in my decision path
because:

(a) While these techniques did liberate me somewhat to push the Amount
of my sharpening a little further without fear of artifacts, it wasn't
enough of a difference to make all of the extra steps worth it for me.
I found that just being conservative enough with Unsharp Mask not to
get the artifacts in the first place is sufficient for my needs. I do
understand that people aiming for more professional and enlarged
output might want to wring every extra degree of sharpness they can
possibly get without artifacts.

And,

(b) I wanted to write an expression of the general philosophy beyond
the use of the single tool: the Unsharp Mark. I wanted to do this
because most of the advice about how to use this tool amounted either
to a set of numbers with no general applicability or, just 'it
depends' (sometimes combined with resentment/ridicule for even
asking). I refused to accept that sharpening is some kind of dark
mystical art: the tool must have a set of trade-offs that makes it
complex to explain and I just wanted to set out to delineate them as a
whole. I may not have been totally successful, but I believe from
scanning what's out there that I am one of the very few who have even
tried a comprehensive explanation. To the extent that my description
is accurate, it can only help when using Unsharp Mask in combination
with other techniques.

And finally,

(c) While I have Photoshop, I don't like to keep it on my laptop (and
when I do install it, sometimes when my disorganised hard drive is
nearly full it is extremely slow to use because of its extensive
disk-caching). There is an OS X program called 'GraphicConverter' that
I use for all rapid-fire image processing ... usually stuff destined
for the web. This program will change any image to just about any
other kind of image in any size or colour-depth. And it has several
effects including Unsharp Mask, but it doesn't do layers. Most
importantly, it takes up only about a couple of megs and it runs the
same whether I have 1 gig free or 10 mb free (and since my HD is
always filling up with digital video my free space goes through wild
boom-and-bust cycles).

theMage

"Pete" wrote in message =
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:01:37 -0400, YoYo wrote:

Cameras have improved so much that one should only have
to crop to size and leave it at that.=20

There are other reasons for wanting to sharpen. For example, after =
resizing
an image.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

I resize and there's no need to sharpen. It would look pathetic if I =
did.
Again, a up to date camera and proper lens means practically
no fiddling post-op.
If you don't believe me, you don't believe me. shrug

mark_

"Lionel" wrote in message =
...
Yes, exactly. Apart from the side issue that 'Orville' is a cowardly,
crossposting troll who's doing everything his tiny mind can come up with
to screw up RPD, Unsharp Mask questions come up here several times a
week. I use USM a lot, & I still found Dogger's writeup very
informative. It covers stuff that most of us know, but he went into so
much detail that new Photoshop users would be likely to find it
extremely helpful.
---------------------
---------------------
Good. Maybe when you update your monitor and camera things won't
be so blurry you have to overcompensate.

mark_

"Steve Andrew" wrote in message =
...
Fil Ament wrote:
In article ,
Paul J Gans wrote:

I don't agree. The greatest photographers around have
had to do manipulations both in the development of their
negatives and in the printing of their images.

Examples.

Ansel Adams

Suggested reading: "The Print" by Ansel Adams
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
The field is so diluted now Ansel would have a time of
it standing out from the rest of the crowd. His name is
more infatuation now than substance.

mark_

"mark_digital" wrote in message
...

"Steve Andrew" wrote in message
...
Fil Ament wrote:
In article ,
Paul J Gans wrote:

I don't agree. The greatest photographers around have
had to do manipulations both in the development of their
negatives and in the printing of their images.

Examples.

Ansel Adams

Suggested reading: "The Print" by Ansel Adams
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
The field is so diluted now Ansel would have a time of
it standing out from the rest of the crowd. His name is
more infatuation now than substance.

mark_


George Hurrell

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"mark_digital" wrote in message
...

"Pete" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 14:01:37 -0400, YoYo wrote:

Cameras have improved so much that one should only have
to crop to size and leave it at that.

There are other reasons for wanting to sharpen. For example, after resizing
an image.
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------

I resize and there's no need to sharpen. It would look pathetic if I did.
Again, a up to date camera and proper lens means practically
no fiddling post-op.
If you don't believe me, you don't believe me. shrug

mark_


Having more control over the process in whatever one is using to post
process is imperative to most serious photographers. Leaving the processing
up to the camera is like shooting film and being satisfied with a drug store
print.
It's not a matter of whether you are believable or not.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Kibo informs me that "mark_digital" stated that:


"Lionel" wrote in message ...
Yes, exactly. Apart from the side issue that 'Orville' is a cowardly,
crossposting troll who's doing everything his tiny mind can come up with
to screw up RPD, Unsharp Mask questions come up here several times a
week. I use USM a lot, & I still found Dogger's writeup very
informative. It covers stuff that most of us know, but he went into so
much detail that new Photoshop users would be likely to find it
extremely helpful.
---------------------
---------------------
Good. Maybe when you update your monitor and camera things won't
be so blurry you have to overcompensate.

rolls eyes
My primary monitor is a 22" La Cie Electron Blue running at 1600x1200
pixels, which is calibrated every week or two, & I regularly do prints
that are large enough to require some sharpening after they've been
enlarged.

And you're a fine person to be describing anyone here in that
patronising tone - your illegible, incompetant quoting style makes your
posts look like they're written by a 10 year old who's just discovered
Usenet.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

24 Jun 2004 09:03 PM mark_digital wrote:
I resize and there's no need to sharpen. It would look pathetic if I =
did.

Obviously you need to work on your technique.

Sharpening is sometimes necessary or desirable and if it looks pathetic,
it's operator error.

"nope" wrote in message =
...
24 Jun 2004 09:03 PM mark_digital wrote:
I resize and there's no need to sharpen. It would look pathetic if I =
=3D
did.

Obviously you need to work on your technique.

Sharpening is sometimes necessary or desirable and if it looks pathetic, =

it's operator error.
------------------------------
------------------------------

Sharpening is pathetic all the time. Whats' really pathetic is =
continually doing the same wrong thing that requires sharpening. If =
you're sharpening for artistic reasons I can understand.
Toys should be fun, not work. Learn to use your camera correctly.

mark_

"Lionel" wrote in message =
news
rolls eyes=20
My primary monitor is a 22" La Cie Electron Blue running at 1600x1200
pixels, which is calibrated every week or two, & I regularly do prints
that are large enough to require some sharpening after they've been
enlarged.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

-------------------------------------------------------------------------=

You're full of it as usual.=20

mark_
------------------------
------------------------

And you're a fine person to be describing anyone here in that
patronising tone - your illegible, incompetant quoting style makes your
posts look like they're written by a 10 year old who's just discovered
Usenet.

------------------------
------------------------

Tell me, which one of your parents insisted you finish high school?
Your white momma or your black daddy?

mark_