Am I oversharpening

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Celtic Boar, May 30, 2005.

  1. Celtic Boar

    Celtic Boar Guest

    Celtic Boar, May 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Celtic Boar

    Paul Furman Guest


    I don't think so. Oversharpened pics show halos around edges, emphasized
    noise and a sort of flattened washed, out electric haze look.

    PS If you sharpened for print size then reduced for web, we won't see
    that at all. It is size dependent.
     
    Paul Furman, May 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Celtic Boar

    Celtic Boar Guest

    No, I sharpened them last step.

    I am a film photog learning the digital game. When I compare the RAW files
    saved as TIFF to my processed files, the processed files look unreal. Too
    sharp. Maybe I am seeing it backwards and the Raw is too soft.

    Thanks.
     
    Celtic Boar, May 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Celtic Boar

    Paul Furman Guest


    RAW files from a digital camera are indeed very soft and low contrast. I
    don't think anybody shoots digital without some sharpening. The contrast
    almost certainly needs to be increased too but most software will do
    that to some sort of default without even asking. Many DSLRs shoot jpegs
    that are muddy looking compared to point & shoot digitals so there is
    room to adjust with software & the pictures are not already blown out.

    Set the defaults in your raw converter to suit typical shots to give
    them punch then just relax the sharpening for high ISO noisy exceptions
    & relax contrast for high contrast pictures.

    You won't see a lot of the "oversharpening" when printed. On a computer
    you can zoom in & obsess on every detail but it'll be softer in a print.

    PS I don't know how this all compares to film & I'm fairly new to all
    this myself.
     
    Paul Furman, May 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Celtic Boar

    Stacey Guest


    Not really.


    The only thing I see is some of the sharpening is being applied to OOF parts
    of the image which can be distracting and cause the bokeh of the lenes to
    look extra harsh.

    I'm a BIG fan of ultrasharpen which selectively applies sharpening to an
    image by finding the edges and letting you tweak two different sharpening
    'masks' (using the PS levels tool on the masks) which is used to apply the
    sharpening at two different levels of sharpening. My "default" is radius
    1.6 100% then the second pass at .6 radius at 80%. Here's a screen shot of
    one of these masks being made on an image.

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/ultrasharpen.jpg

    Where the black is, it sharpens the most and varies through the shades of
    gray till it ignores the white part totally. This elimates halos and allows
    more sharpening without ruining the background or cranking up any noise the
    image may have etc. As you can see on this mask it would sharpen the bird
    and branch but ignore the smooth background part of the image which you
    really wouldn't want any sharpening applied to.

    This isn't a great bird shot, was one of my first attempts, but isn't awful
    either. Been better if the bird wasn't in the shade.

    Anyway this was what it looks like after sharpening with this tool..

    http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-1/937049/bird2.jpg

    It's a great tool and only costs $10.
     
    Stacey, May 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Celtic Boar

    C Wright Guest

    Your images do not look over sharpened to me. Also, when images are printed
    on an inkjet they will almost always look softer than they do on your
    monitor.
    Chuck
     
    C Wright, May 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Celtic Boar

    Ben Cramer Guest

    Not at all.
     
    Ben Cramer, May 30, 2005
    #7
  8. Celtic Boar

    C Wright Guest

    Considering your reputation in this group I hesitate to reply at all but for
    the sake of potential newer dlsr users I can't let this statement stand!
    Unless someone has optional in-camera sharpness cranked way up dlsr's are
    noted for producing soft images - this is by the manufacturer's design.
    Most all advanced amateurs and pros prefer it this way and will use some
    sort of post processing program and either leave their images soft or
    sharpen as desired. Many, many images benefit from sharpening and to say
    that "In general, if you are sharpening at all then your are
    oversharpening." is just plain wrong! As far as the rest of your statement
    about sharpening tending to tending to "flatten" or "invert the 3D nature"
    of an image - huh!
     
    C Wright, May 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Celtic Boar

    Celtic Boar Guest

    Celtic Boar, May 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Celtic Boar

    Paul Furman Guest


    It still doesn't look oversharpened but the contrast is very extreme.
    Maybe the black background makes a more dramatic shot though.
     
    Paul Furman, May 30, 2005
    #10
  11. Celtic Boar

    Stacey Guest

    I agree the contrast seems to high but the original shot looks -really-
    flat. Maybe something in between those extreams would work?
     
    Stacey, May 30, 2005
    #11
  12. Celtic Boar

    Stacey Guest


    Ditto, george is clueless once again about anything related to photography,
    nice post..
     
    Stacey, May 30, 2005
    #12
  13. Celtic Boar

    Tetractys Guest

    This is an untrue statement. Sharpening is part
    of any proper digital workflow. Look here:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/techniques/process.shtml
    Huh?

    For a good primer on sharpening, look here:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml

    or an alternative, try this:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/high-pass-sharpening.shtml

    Here is another good tutorial on USM:
    http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11242-1.html

    Here is MS's version of the comment that Bayer filtering is
    responsible for the necessity of USM in the first place:
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/digitalphotography/learnmore/sharpening.mspx
     
    Tetractys, May 30, 2005
    #13
  14. Celtic Boar

    Stacey Guest

    Stacey, May 30, 2005
    #14
  15. Celtic Boar

    Tetractys Guest

    Not really. It's an issue that should be addressed
    in any discussion of Bayer filtering -- the need for
    post-process sharpening. You can't avoid it, and
    the need is there.

    George's problem is that he blames the Bayer filter
    for global problems like entropy and unrest in South-
    west Asia, and believes that a crappy camera based
    on poorly-implemented Foveon technology is superior
    despite overwhelming evidence and opinion to the
    contrary.

    So I'll step in it all day long, but call it what it is.
    Bayer = water puddle;
    Sigma = dog poop.
     
    Tetractys, May 30, 2005
    #15
  16. Celtic Boar

    Tetractys Guest

    So "2M pixels worth of ... data" = "horrid."

    And ...
    You sure are a confused fellow, George.
     
    Tetractys, May 30, 2005
    #16
  17. SNIP
    Don't need? They wouldn't allow it, if you don't want to enhance
    aliasing artifacts.
    Nonsense, aliasing will add artifacts. Finer detail than the sensor
    can resolve will be imaged as larger detail, which cannot be undone
    after the fact.
    Nonsense, again, as usual.
    Nonsense, again, as usual.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 30, 2005
    #17
  18. Celtic Boar

    C Wright Guest

    George (if that is your name) you are a piece of work! Any digital
    sharpening that I have done does not plow through every pixel blindly.
    Sharpening that I am familiar with is adjustable according to threshold,
    radius and degree or amount. Millions of images taken by thousands of
    digital photographers, and sharpened digitally, disprove your assertion that
    they are all exceeding the capabilities of their cameras at the expense of
    quality. Of course there are some flat and lifeless digital images out
    there but, there were/are an equal degree of flat and lifeless film images
    as well!
     
    C Wright, May 31, 2005
    #18
  19. But then you should know it, I assume/hope/doubt.
    Upscaling has nothing, nada, zip, to do with it.

    Like in any Bayer pattern filtered sensor array, each sensel captures
    roughly 1/3rd of the human visible spectrum, due to color filters on
    each sensel. Demosaicing interpolates 2/3rd of the chromaticity from
    the contribution from several neighboring sensels, and complements the
    luminocity.
    And you base that assertion on ... personal experience?
    Do you understand the difference between monochrome and a spectral
    band? Apparently not.
    Why is the "Original 1D Mk II crop, as shot" the same size as the
    "Downsized..." version?
    More snake-oil from Steve Giovenella? Are you trying (in vain as
    usual) to pull a preddy?

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 31, 2005
    #19
  20. Which again proves my point, you seem clueless.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, May 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
There are no similar threads yet.
Loading...