www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

I'm interested to know how much sharpening people apply to their pics in Photoshop? I tend to err on the side of caution but sometimes I feel my pics look a bit bland compared to ones I see on the web.

In Photoshop Elements, I generally use Unsharp Mask settings of 1.2 pixels radius, 125% amount, and a threshold of 7, on 12MP photos. I often find that when I reduce the size for the web, extra sharpening seems desirable.

Of course, contrast also has its part to play and a gentle boost can add 'zip' to a photo.

Anyone have a 'magic' formula!?

Mike

i use radius 1, and between 30 - 50% maximum, threshold 1, after re sizing to 190 pix inch/ 9 cm height! =1010 pix width
presume you are shooting RAW and sharpen 20% on conversion to jpg

phil

I don't have a magic formula, so I'll be watching this thread with interest. Some images posted here look spactacularly sharp, better than I can achieve even with shots taken in perfect conditions. But I also find overshapened images look worse than soft ones, so there has to be a good balance to be found.

MikeOxon wrote: I often find that when I reduce the size for the web, extra sharpening seems desirable.

Definitely. When I downsize in PSE to usually 700-800px for web posting, I use 'bicubic' (not 'bicubic sharper', which overcooks things), then run Unsharp Mask again, typically radius 0.4, amount ~100%, threshold ~5. Sometimes it can be worth selecting just the in-focus area so you don't 'sharpen' bits that should be creamy smooth, as this can exaggerate noise or ugly highlights.

dilettante wrote:Some images posted here look spactacularly sharp

That's exactly why I started this thread! Let's hope our fellow members are prepared to reveal their secrets!

Thank you also for your comment on down-sizing - extra sharpening seems to be a key step in preparing photos for the web.

I discovered your selective technique quite recently and now tend to use it for very distant birds in flight - it can make a fuzzy blob in the distance look almost reasonable, providing you don't look closely!

I was surprised by the low settings quoted by GOLDENORFE until I noticed you sharpen on converting from RAW. I don't add any sharpening at that stage (yes, I do start from RAW) but only after I have finished cropping etc. in Photoshop. Your method seems to yield good results, judging by your galleries.

Mike

This page is pretty thorough. I haven't read it in a while, but probably should go back and read it again!:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... pening.htm

On the subject of downsizing it says "For downsized images, an unsharp mask radius of 0.2-0.3 and an amount of 200-400% works almost universally well."

Dunno what you're all on about.

Zonda wrote:Dunno what you're all on about.

Clearly, looking at your photos, you have your own 'magic'!

Mike

dilettante wrote:This page is pretty thorough.....

Thanks for the reference. I've had a first look and it seems very comprehensive. I'm only using the last stage of the process it describes, so will read more thoroughly and try out the suggestions.

On the related topic of 'image noise', birding friends introduced me to the 'Neat Image' software, which does a great job on high ISO photos.

Mike

I use photoshop CS4 and use the Smart Sharpen tool which gives a much more natural looking effect (ie not over the top) compared th the Unsharp Mask. I use a radius of 0.3, maybe sometimes 0.4 (the lower the figure the less harsh the result). The amount depends a bit from image to image but usually around the 100% figure if the image is reduced to around 1000 pixels for the web say. I'd go higher for a full sized image I am going to print, perhaps 150%.

I do sometimes find that following up with another go at a much lower amount of around 15-30% can give an image an extra bit of bite without overdoing it. This is especially true for a full sized image I'm going to print.

Sometimes, when printing big, A3 say, you almost want the image to look a bit over sharp at 100% to get a sharp print.

One other trick is to not have an image too bright before you sharpen it, as sharpening it tends to further emphasise the bright edges on the hairs etc. so having the highlights a little under exposed (a little bit dark) before you sharpen it gives a pretty well exposed final result.

For Noise reduction Neat Image is quite good, however I find Lightroom the best and now use that almost exclusively. I try not to shoot above ISO 400 for printing, although I have taken some shots in almost total darkness at ISO 1600 on my 50D and they look prety damn good for the web!

Below is a Wrecclesham Glanville Fritillary taken at about 9:20PM (about 10 minutes after sunset) at ISO-1600 and under exposed by 2/3 of a stop to get the shutter spead up to a nifty 0.6s! A bit of fine detail is lost, but it doesn't look bad at this size considering

FISHiEE wrote:I use photoshop CS4 and use the Smart Sharpen tool which gives a much more natural looking effect

Thank you for so much detailed information. I tend to stick with software that works, even when it gets rather ancient, so I'm still using v2 of Photoshop Elements! However, a little research showed that a slightly cut-down version of Smart Sharpen is available in Photoshop Elements (PSE) from v5 onwards, under the 'Enhance | Adjust Sharpness' tab.

I have a copy of PSE v5, so gave Smart Sharpen a try, using the 'Lens Blur' option, and can confirm that it does indeed give a better result than the Unsharp Mask - cleaner details with less artefacts in plain areas. I found a tutorial about Smart Sharpen on the web at http://photoshoptips.net/2006/03/09/smart-sharpen/ . As far as I can tell, it's the 'advanced' features that are missing in Elements.

My web searches also threw up something called 'wavelet sharpening', which can be used with the GIMP picture editor (open source) and also seems to do a pretty good job, with very little halo effect at edges. When I have time, I'll try a direct comparison of these different methods and post some results on the forum.

Mike

FISHiEE wrote:

Below is a Wrecclesham Glanville Fritillary taken at about 9:20PM (about 10 minutes after sunset) at ISO-1600 and under exposed by 2/3 of a stop to get the shutter spead up to a nifty 0.6s! A bit of fine detail is lost, but it doesn't look bad at this size considering

I know practically nothing about photography, but that Glanville underside image is truly stunning (why do the antennae look so different though?)

Afraid photoshop is all mumbo jumbo to me, could not understand it so deleted it from my pc. I have an old copy of paint shop pro 5 & no idea what most of it if for. So I just alter the brightness & contrast in psp5, if I cannot get an image I like in a couple of clicks the photo is deleted! Eric

Hi David,
The antennae are held in a "V" and when taken from the side like that, you can see the inside edge of one and the outside edge of the other. It is amazingly different though isn't it.

PS: I would be chuffed to get a shot like that on an ISO-100 setting John.

Trev

David M wrote:
I know practically nothing about photography, but that Glanville underside image is truly stunning (why do the antennae look so different though?)

Thanks I hadn't noticed the antennae before. Normally the inside and outside edges would be similar but with Glanvilles this isn't the case it seems. I had to check through my other glanville shots and they're all like it as the below image proves!

EricY wrote:Afraid photoshop is all mumbo jumbo to me, could not understand it so deleted it from my pc. I have an old copy of paint shop pro 5 & no idea what most of it if for. So I just alter the brightness & contrast in psp5, if I cannot get an image I like in a couple of clicks the photo is deleted! Eric

I started out doing pretty much the same using just a couple of the tools and I've just slowly played with a few more over the years and got the hang of them. I still doubt I use more than about 2% of the features!

http://tv.adobe.com/product/photoshop/ this is a link to Adobe TV, you can watch video tutorials for free all about using Photoshop, I work in a photographic shop and spend a large amount of my day restoring old photos, so I use photoshop and it is a wonderful programe, its so big and encompasses so much, but dont worry about that, just use the bits that you need to , in order to achieve the results that you require.
Hope this helps..
Stewart..............

Thanks Stewart.
That's very useful.

PS: With a name like hooklink, you must surely be one of a number of fellow anglers on here?
Welcome aboard.

Trev

Ah yes... the group is growing slowly

Fishing has well and truly taken second place to butterflies for me these days, in fact I rarely go fishing in the UK now, but I'm off to Norway in search of Halibut next month for my one fishing trip of the year

hooklink wrote:Adobe TV, you can watch video tutorials for free all about using Photoshop

That's a useful resource to know about, thanks!

For those who never use Photoshop, the beauty of digital cameras is that they can produce really good pictures with little effort! This p****s off some photographers who learned the hard way!!! I grew up watching the processes in my father's darkroom and became fascinated, so I use digital processing for fun!

Mike

Yes I was a fisherman, and in fact had a Trout farm for 16 years, but I always had an interest in photography, then when I was able to afford the gear I needed fishing has taken a back seat.....

Stewart.......