A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 4th 04, 04:19 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:35:49 -0400, Alan Browne had this to say:

I suggest you get intimately aquainted with USM and try it on subjects
with a lot of fine detail v. subjects with lower detail. The differences
in settings for the USM are very, very different in both cases; and again
very different for different ouput sizes (whether screen, thumbnail, small
prints, large prints...)


I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on hundreds
of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand them over
to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself. When I was
doing school portraits this used to take me days!

The very variability of this suggests that letting an algorithm do it in
camera is taking risks with the image quality... and once artifacts from
sharpenning are introduced, they cannot be undone. If there was a single
auto-sharpenning algorithm that could be used on any given image, then PS
would have it. The one they do have is useless, hence USM.


As far as quality goes, it would depend on the type of work you are doing.
If you were doing fine art on digital (shock! horror!) then you might be
justified in working with USM in PS. Personally I find the sharpening done
on the D70 is pretty good. I've used it in a number of different types of
photos and the results all look very good to me. Take my last SI (Red)
submission for example. The fibres on the apple stalk are very prominent
in the original image and I don't think you need much more detail than
that!

Professionals will make USM adjustments on the output work at the work
size. If they don't the graphics staff certainly will.

The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after
the shoot, the better.


Not if the work in the camera reduces the ultimate usability of the image.


Aha! There's your rub, right there.

--
DD™
"And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG

  #12  
Old October 4th 04, 04:19 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:35:49 -0400, Alan Browne had this to say:

I suggest you get intimately aquainted with USM and try it on subjects
with a lot of fine detail v. subjects with lower detail. The differences
in settings for the USM are very, very different in both cases; and again
very different for different ouput sizes (whether screen, thumbnail, small
prints, large prints...)


I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on hundreds
of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand them over
to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself. When I was
doing school portraits this used to take me days!

The very variability of this suggests that letting an algorithm do it in
camera is taking risks with the image quality... and once artifacts from
sharpenning are introduced, they cannot be undone. If there was a single
auto-sharpenning algorithm that could be used on any given image, then PS
would have it. The one they do have is useless, hence USM.


As far as quality goes, it would depend on the type of work you are doing.
If you were doing fine art on digital (shock! horror!) then you might be
justified in working with USM in PS. Personally I find the sharpening done
on the D70 is pretty good. I've used it in a number of different types of
photos and the results all look very good to me. Take my last SI (Red)
submission for example. The fibres on the apple stalk are very prominent
in the original image and I don't think you need much more detail than
that!

Professionals will make USM adjustments on the output work at the work
size. If they don't the graphics staff certainly will.

The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after
the shoot, the better.


Not if the work in the camera reduces the ultimate usability of the image.


Aha! There's your rub, right there.

--
DD™
"And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG

  #13  
Old October 4th 04, 06:54 PM
Annika1980
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right.


Then you probably realize that the in-camera sharpening settings have no effect
when shooting in RAW mode.

So the question then becomes whether to apply the sharpening upon conversion.
Rather than be limited by using one fixed sharpening setting at conversion
time, I prefer to use Photokit Sharpener which has much greater flexibility and
offers the ability to do selective sharpening on certain parts of the image.

Granted, I don't spend a lot of time preparing the images I post here so every
once in awhile you may see hints of over-sharpening.


  #14  
Old October 4th 04, 10:43 PM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article pan.2004.10.04.15.03.09.383000@realphoto, dallas2
@pingmefirst.co.za says...
I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on hundreds
of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand them over
to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself. When I was
doing school portraits this used to take me days!


If you were doing school portraits, you should have made a action to do
the sharpening for you. After you determined the optimal sharpening for
the shooting conditions and subject, of course. But school pictures are
more alike than different, I'd imagine you'd be able to squeeze them
through just fine.

As for everyone else, either they don't worry about sharpening until the
final image is selected for print, or they just sharpen generically and
include the RAW file.

In any case, you get the best results by doing your sharpening at the
last step. For most photos, this is probably done right before
printing.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
  #15  
Old October 4th 04, 10:43 PM
Brian C. Baird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article pan.2004.10.04.15.03.09.383000@realphoto, dallas2
@pingmefirst.co.za says...
I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on hundreds
of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand them over
to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself. When I was
doing school portraits this used to take me days!


If you were doing school portraits, you should have made a action to do
the sharpening for you. After you determined the optimal sharpening for
the shooting conditions and subject, of course. But school pictures are
more alike than different, I'd imagine you'd be able to squeeze them
through just fine.

As for everyone else, either they don't worry about sharpening until the
final image is selected for print, or they just sharpen generically and
include the RAW file.

In any case, you get the best results by doing your sharpening at the
last step. For most photos, this is probably done right before
printing.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
  #16  
Old October 5th 04, 12:27 AM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dallas wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:35:49 -0400, Alan Browne had this to say:


I suggest you get intimately aquainted with USM and try it on subjects
with a lot of fine detail v. subjects with lower detail. The differences
in settings for the USM are very, very different in both cases; and again
very different for different ouput sizes (whether screen, thumbnail, small
prints, large prints...)



I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on hundreds
of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand them over
to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself. When I was
doing school portraits this used to take me days!


For school portraits, once you figure the USM parameters (at various sizes), and
verify over a few different photos, can be batch processed (in the full
photoshop) for the whole set. Little is going to change kid to kid that a
single setting won't handle (for each perspective and output size).

The very variability of this suggests that letting an algorithm do it in
camera is taking risks with the image quality... and once artifacts from
sharpenning are introduced, they cannot be undone. If there was a single
auto-sharpenning algorithm that could be used on any given image, then PS
would have it. The one they do have is useless, hence USM.



As far as quality goes, it would depend on the type of work you are doing.
If you were doing fine art on digital (shock! horror!) then you might be
justified in working with USM in PS. Personally I find the sharpening done
on the D70 is pretty good. I've used it in a number of different types of
photos and the results all look very good to me. Take my last SI (Red)
submission for example. The fibres on the apple stalk are very prominent
in the original image and I don't think you need much more detail than
that!


That's subjective. For some images a fine touch of sharpening is enough, and
the generic "Sharpen" a bit heavy handed... and you can see the halos along
edges that result.

And of course, as stated, for different output sizes an unsharp mask step for
that size is required.

It is, unfortunately, something that cannot be automated (as far as I know)
because it requires a human to evaluate the effect of the sharpenning step
before acceptance.

Professionals will make USM adjustments on the output work at the work
size. If they don't the graphics staff certainly will.


The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after
the shoot, the better.


Not if the work in the camera reduces the ultimate usability of the image.



Aha! There's your rub, right there.


Not at all. If that camera irretrievably damages an image by oversharpening,
there is no going back. From RAW, you have the most available improvement
available.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #17  
Old October 5th 04, 12:27 AM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dallas wrote:

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 10:35:49 -0400, Alan Browne had this to say:


I suggest you get intimately aquainted with USM and try it on subjects
with a lot of fine detail v. subjects with lower detail. The differences
in settings for the USM are very, very different in both cases; and again
very different for different ouput sizes (whether screen, thumbnail, small
prints, large prints...)



I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on hundreds
of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand them over
to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself. When I was
doing school portraits this used to take me days!


For school portraits, once you figure the USM parameters (at various sizes), and
verify over a few different photos, can be batch processed (in the full
photoshop) for the whole set. Little is going to change kid to kid that a
single setting won't handle (for each perspective and output size).

The very variability of this suggests that letting an algorithm do it in
camera is taking risks with the image quality... and once artifacts from
sharpenning are introduced, they cannot be undone. If there was a single
auto-sharpenning algorithm that could be used on any given image, then PS
would have it. The one they do have is useless, hence USM.



As far as quality goes, it would depend on the type of work you are doing.
If you were doing fine art on digital (shock! horror!) then you might be
justified in working with USM in PS. Personally I find the sharpening done
on the D70 is pretty good. I've used it in a number of different types of
photos and the results all look very good to me. Take my last SI (Red)
submission for example. The fibres on the apple stalk are very prominent
in the original image and I don't think you need much more detail than
that!


That's subjective. For some images a fine touch of sharpening is enough, and
the generic "Sharpen" a bit heavy handed... and you can see the halos along
edges that result.

And of course, as stated, for different output sizes an unsharp mask step for
that size is required.

It is, unfortunately, something that cannot be automated (as far as I know)
because it requires a human to evaluate the effect of the sharpenning step
before acceptance.

Professionals will make USM adjustments on the output work at the work
size. If they don't the graphics staff certainly will.


The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after
the shoot, the better.


Not if the work in the camera reduces the ultimate usability of the image.



Aha! There's your rub, right there.


Not at all. If that camera irretrievably damages an image by oversharpening,
there is no going back. From RAW, you have the most available improvement
available.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #18  
Old October 5th 04, 08:53 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:43:46 +0000, Brian C. Baird had this to say:

In article pan.2004.10.04.15.03.09.383000@realphoto, dallas2
@pingmefirst.co.za says...
I am quite familiar with unsharp masking and even more familiar with the
amount of time it takes to tweak it right. If you are sitting on
hundreds of photographs that have to be sorted with USM before you hand
them over to the purchaser, you are creating a headache for yourself.
When I was doing school portraits this used to take me days!


If you were doing school portraits, you should have made a action to do
the sharpening for you. After you determined the optimal sharpening for
the shooting conditions and subject, of course. But school pictures are
more alike than different, I'd imagine you'd be able to squeeze them
through just fine.


Read my reply to Alan. Saving the files couldn't be batched using any
means I was aware of.

The approach I am adopting now is this: the less work I have to do in
Photoshop, the better. This is why I just love the custom curve setting
that can be uploaded to the D70, plus the in-camera sharpening setting is
doing a fine job for me.

--
DD™
"And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG

  #19  
Old October 5th 04, 08:53 PM
Dallas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 19:27:03 -0400, Alan Browne had this to say:

For school portraits, once you figure the USM parameters (at various
sizes), and verify over a few different photos, can be batch processed (in
the full photoshop) for the whole set. Little is going to change kid to
kid that a single setting won't handle (for each perspective and output
size).


Now here's the thing with batch processing in PS: how do you get it to
save your jpegs without asking you confirm image quality in every single
image?

The concept of batch processing was always forefront in my mind. Just
didn't work because whenever I wanted to save the resultant image, I would
have to change the quality in the final "save" dialog. I couldn't batch
that process.

That's subjective. For some images a fine touch of sharpening is
enough, and the generic "Sharpen" a bit heavy handed... and you can see
the halos along edges that result.


I haven't seen any halos from using in-camera sharpening with either the
D60 or the D70.

And of course, as stated, for different output sizes an unsharp mask
step for that size is required.

It is, unfortunately, something that cannot be automated (as far as I
know) because it requires a human to evaluate the effect of the
sharpenning step before acceptance.


I'm happy with the job the camera is doing.

Aha! There's your rub, right there.


Not at all. If that camera irretrievably damages an image by
oversharpening, there is no going back. From RAW, you have the most
available improvement available.


The kind of work I am doing doesn't require RAW. The files are just too
darn big and the process of converting them to TIFF is just tedium that I
can do without.

Digital is supposed to be about convenience, not inconvenience, which is
why, if it's quality I want, I shoot slide film.

--
DD™
"And that's all I got to say about that" ~ FG

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE 20D !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 34 October 9th 04 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.