Sharpening...?

[Hamish Gill]

Now, i have to admit that i dont often sharpen my images ...
I have my d3 set to the default sharpness, and i assume this is what is being applied in lightroom... or am i wrong?

this is what lightroom always seems to apply

is that just a standard level of sharpening? or has it got that from my cameras settings?


and now on to rudi and his sharpening

i miss read this rudi

I do not sharpen much, I always use the same technique, converting the image (16 bit TIFF produced from RAW by C1PRO) into LAB mode, then selecting the luminosity channel before sharpening (Smart sharpen in Photoshop CS4) around 70%, 0.5 and 0, this seem to produce good results for the screen

and thought you were talking about a "lab mode" in c1pro... but i miss understood

so

firstly... why do you sharpen the 16bit tiff and not the raw version?

secondly... tell me about lab mode

thirdly... whats the advantage of only sharpening the luminosity channel

sorry to ask so many questions of you so soon to the forum ... bit of a baptism of fire maybe?

 

[Pete Askew]

The raw file will have no sharpening applied as it leaves the camera (it is purely the data from the sensor). Usually, sharpening at raw conversion is used mainly to compensate for the anti-aliasing filter (if present - not present in the case of the Phase One P45 etc backs and Leica M9 and S2). Other sharpening is better done later in the process and is often output dependent. This is probably the definitive guide (and not as bad as you mighth imagine to read!!).

http://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Sharp...7550/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1300990558&sr=8-4

 

[Hamish Gill]

But the
Raw data also transfers camera setting Pete ... wb for instance...I wondered if the same might be for sharpening ... If not where has lightroom got those settings from?

 

[Pete Askew]

I see what you mean. I'm actually not sure how much of the EXIF data LR uses when in imports files and how much (or what elements) are the settings that Adobe have chosen as defaults (you can certainly alter these and save new profiles). That's intrigued me and I will investigate further. I'm pretty sure the sharpening settings you are showing are independent of camera though.

 

[Rudi Venter]

I do not think the RAW file contains any sharpening, not on the Canon bodies anyway though I have been told it might be different with Nikon, should not though.

I find that Photoshop does a better job with sharpening than any RAW converter, part of the reason is the LAB mode that I believe makes a huge difference. I try and keep images 16bit as long as possible, but only when I am going to print large, for web and small prints RAW to JPG (100% quality) works fine.

Once in Photoshop I will do whatever I want to do, leaving sharpening for last. Once I am happy with the image, other than sharpness and maybe contrast, I will convert the image to LAB mode (Image -> Mode -> Lab mode). Once in Lab mode I will select only the lightness channel (CTL+3) this gives you a gray-scale image.

If I feel I need more contrast I will add it here. Then I will go the Smart sharpening (Filter -> Sharpen -> Smart Sharpen). The actual values I choose depends on the image and the camera, some cameras can handle more sharpening than other, some need more. The amount would be somewhere between 50-120%, the Radius between 0.2 and 1.0 (VERY body dependent!) I select "Gaussian Blur" and "More accurate"

Once this is done I will convert back to RGB or CYMK if needed and then save in TIFF for large prints or quality 12 JPG for web/small prints.

If I re-size the image to web size I would normally go through the same process but only use around 0.1-0.3 Radius.

For a large number of similar images this can all be automated with an Action.
I hope this all makes sense!!

 

[Rudi Venter]

It is true that the setting are attached to the RAW image, if it is applied or not depends on the converter, I think that only the manufacturers own converters normally applies it automatically but I might be mistaken, I am sure C1 does not.

 

[Rudi Venter]

PS. The advantage of sharpening only the lightness channel is that you can sharpen more without getting (color) halos and other artifacts.

 

[Thomas brookes]

Hamish I just pulled an untouched RAW file into lightroom and have the same data as you in the sharpening sliders, could it just be a preset in light room or some form of compensation?

 

[Pete Askew]

Yes, these are the default settings used by Adobe. You can create new ones and save them as a profile and associate them with a specific camera.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Understand now...... When I rip up an untouched Raw file on my LR, Radius on 1.0 and detail on 25, Masking and amount on 0.... and I must admitt Hamish, I'm the same, I do sharpen my images a touch, but I don't take the amount any more than 20, looks too manipulated....

 

[Hamish Gill]

Cheers for the clarification all!
And Rudi, I will try this very soon and let you know how I get on!

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Used to use Lab (L) colour space sharpening exclusively - but since moving to the 5D2 - I have found the Adobe RAW conversion sharpening to have a good effect with minimal issues.

All RAW images could do with some sharpening - the AA filters on DSLRs make them all look soft - amount of softness is model dependent.

With newer sensors, lower noise, and more pixels - sharpening can be effective without causing 'grain' - or completely trashing the image!

The threads on forums about 'my camera has banding in it's images' is almost always someone who has under exposed, over post processed and/or over sharpened an image - to the point where the noise floor is now very visible.

Just a point to note - RGB to Lab and back again is a lossless process - so no worries about degrading images.

If you're still only shooting JPEG - get that camera switched to RAW and reap the benefits! LOL

 

[Rudi Venter]

Hope it works for you Hamish!

I agree Chris, RAW is the only way, I don't think my cameras know any other way Sharpening is a must when you shoot RAW, but it can mess up an image very quickly if you over do it!

How much depends on the image and on the camera, if I compare lets say my 1DSm3, 7D, D3x and D300s they are quite different with the FF bodies (due to the lower pixel density) more tolerant of sharpening than the crop bodies. On some cameras noise, even at low ISO's become ugly with anything more than a tiny amount of sharpening.

 

[Hamish Gill]

Yes, jpeg shooting is strictly for the iPhone ... And I'd shoot in raw on that if it had a mode for it!

 

[Pete Askew]

Hamish, I need to find more detail but quite a few of the default setting in LR are camera dependent. Not sure how much is EXIF related but, for example a file output from a D700 gets 25% by default but from an S5 Pro it gets 0. Radius and detail are obvious defaulted to 1 and 25 as when you add sharpening to an image, that is what they start at. I was just working on some technical images and spotted the differences (I don't usually use LR for this but there are a lot and I need them sorted before I fly on Sunday).

 

[Hamish Gill]

Hamish, I need to find more detail but quite a few of the default setting in LR are camera dependent. Not sure how much is EXIF related but, for example a file output from a D700 gets 25% by default but from an S5 Pro it gets 0. Radius and detail are obvious defaulted to 1 and 25 as when you add sharpening to an image, that is what they start at. I was just working on some technical images and spotted the differences (I don't usually use LR for this but there are a lot and I need them sorted before I fly on Sunday).

I have always been under the impression that a few of the settings that lightroom uses are linked to the raw data it sees ... but have never looked into it really ... when something like that just works, and you know they effect of the controls and how to achieve what you are trying to achive ... sometimes knowing the ins and outs of what is going on isn't entirely necessary ... like my analogy in the aperture tutorial about the gears of a car i suppose!

another one i have been asked about recently is why the wb scale is the opposite to what it should be ... eg, if you select 2000k it gives a blue tint, if you select 10000 it gives a red tint... which is the opposite of the wb scale ...
If i am right it is because its working as a compensation ...
but for some reason i cant work out quite how to explain it in words .... any thoughts?

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Good write up on sharpening using Unsharp Mask, and Lab mode here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/unsharp-mask.htm

 

[Pete Askew]

Hi Hamish, that's because it relates to the colour temperature used to make the capture. If you shot under incandescent light with a colour temperature of, say 3000K, the scene will have been lit with light containing a lot of long wavelength light (reds and yellow). If you tell Lightroom that is was actually shot at 10,000K (rather than what is got from the EXIF data) then the image would appear red as it would have expected the scene to have been lit with a lot of short wavelength light (blues).

 

[Hamish Gill]

cheers pete ... that makes sense!
if barry crops up he will tell you about the guy i got into a row with about this ... madness
my argument was "does it really matter?"
and he just wouldnt leave it... we get some interesting characters in the shop.... still, its good fun!

 

[Ralph Thornton]

Chris,
Thanks for posting that link. Some good info there. I've been using unsharp mask in my post processing but usually on the full image. I'm going to give a try to using it on the luminosity channel and see how that goes.