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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |