sharpening

[M.Chapman]

This has been an interesting thread that's making me reconsider my workflow. My main reason for sharpening in PS was so that I could do it after CA removal (at the time also done in PS). But, with my current camera and lens combo, I now find the automatic CA removal in LR so effective, that I very rarely have to remove any CA afterwards. If I could automatically apply a "default" level of sharpening during LR RAW conversion, with "default" masking to avoid adding noise to flat areas, it would overcome another area of my concerns whilst automating part of my workflow. But that still leaves concern over introducing halos on high contrast edges.

 

This thread has mentioned the use of the mask setting in LR to avoid sharpening noise in flat areas.

 

Is there an easy way to avoid sharpening edges that are already high contrast? A kind of "mid range" sharpen tool or setting? If it's totally blurry or flat, don't sharpen it. If it's a high contrast edge silhouetted against the sky (for example), don't sharpen it.

 

I suppose this would need a second mask slider? The first mask slider would set the local contrast level below which sharpening isn't applied (i.e. the one LR has now). The second slider would set the local contrast level above which sharpening isn't applied. i.e. sharpening would only be applied to areas with local contrast levels in between the levels set by the two sliders?

 

I'd find that really useful and would reduce the chance of halos forming around high contrast edges when sharpening.

 

Maybe the tool already exists? Maybe it's already built into LR?

[MDM]

This has been an interesting thread that's making me reconsider my workflow. My main reason for sharpening in PS was so that I could do it after CA removal (at the time also done in PS). But, with my current camera and lens combo, I now find the automatic CA removal in LR so effective, that I very rarely have to remove any CA afterwards. If I could automatically apply a "default" level of sharpening during LR RAW conversion, with "default" masking to avoid adding noise to flat areas, it would overcome another area of my concerns whilst automating part of my workflow. But that still leaves concern over introducing halos on high contrast edges.

 

This thread has mentioned the use of the mask setting in LR to avoid sharpening noise in flat areas.

 

Is there an easy way to avoid sharpening edges that are already high contrast? A kind of "mid range" sharpen tool or setting? If it's totally blurry or flat, don't sharpen it. If it's a high contrast edge silhouetted against the sky (for example), don't sharpen it.

 

I suppose this would need a second mask slider? The first mask slider would set the local contrast level below which sharpening isn't applied (i.e. the one LR has now). The second slider would set the local contrast level above which sharpening isn't applied. i.e. sharpening would only be applied to areas with local contrast levels in between the levels set by the two sliders?

 

I'd find that really useful and would reduce the chance of halos forming around high contrast edges when sharpening.

 

Maybe the tool already exists? Maybe it's already built into LR?

 

If you want a really authoritative lowdown on sharpening and noise control in LR, then I would highly recommend you to get your hands on Martin Evening's Lightroom book. The Kindle version is less than £20. There are over 30 pages on this subject and a vast amount of other information.

[M.Chapman]

 

This has been an interesting thread that's making me reconsider my workflow. My main reason for sharpening in PS was so that I could do it after CA removal (at the time also done in PS). But, with my current camera and lens combo, I now find the automatic CA removal in LR so effective, that I very rarely have to remove any CA afterwards. If I could automatically apply a "default" level of sharpening during LR RAW conversion, with "default" masking to avoid adding noise to flat areas, it would overcome another area of my concerns whilst automating part of my workflow. But that still leaves concern over introducing halos on high contrast edges.

 

This thread has mentioned the use of the mask setting in LR to avoid sharpening noise in flat areas.

 

Is there an easy way to avoid sharpening edges that are already high contrast? A kind of "mid range" sharpen tool or setting? If it's totally blurry or flat, don't sharpen it. If it's a high contrast edge silhouetted against the sky (for example), don't sharpen it.

 

I suppose this would need a second mask slider? The first mask slider would set the local contrast level below which sharpening isn't applied (i.e. the one LR has now). The second slider would set the local contrast level above which sharpening isn't applied. i.e. sharpening would only be applied to areas with local contrast levels in between the levels set by the two sliders?

 

I'd find that really useful and would reduce the chance of halos forming around high contrast edges when sharpening.

 

Maybe the tool already exists? Maybe it's already built into LR?

 

If you want a really authoritative lowdown on sharpening and noise control in LR, then I would highly recommend you to get your hands on Martin Evening's Lightroom book. The Kindle version is less than £20. There are over 30 pages on this subject and a vast amount of other information.

 

 

Thanks. I don't have a Kindle, but I've looked at the Amazon reviews of Martin's book and have added it to my Christmas wish list!

 

Over the years I've read no end of stuff on sharpening (and even written algorithms myself in the early days of image processing) but getting more definitive (inside?) info on LR will be a great help.

[MDM]

You don't need a Kindle. There is a free Kindle app for Mac and Windows which works really well - a lot better than a Kindle for photography reading as you get colour whereas the Kindle is monochrome.

[Allan Bell]

 

 

Is there an easy way to avoid sharpening edges that are already high contrast? A kind of "mid range" sharpen tool or setting? If it's totally blurry or flat, don't sharpen it. If it's a high contrast edge silhouetted against the sky (for example), don't sharpen it.

 

I suppose this would need a second mask slider? The first mask slider would set the local contrast level below which sharpening isn't applied (i.e. the one LR has now). The second slider would set the local contrast level above which sharpening isn't applied. i.e. sharpening would only be applied to areas with local contrast levels in between the levels set by the two sliders?

 

I'd find that really useful and would reduce the chance of halos forming around high contrast edges when sharpening.

 

Maybe the tool already exists? Maybe it's already built into LR?

 

 

There is a "Detail" slider which will sharpen and intensify the edges of your image. If you have a highly textured image, it will emphasize the texture. So I suppose it can be used in the opposite way too.

 

I have to admit that I have never user the "Detail" slider in the sharpening tool and just leave it set at the LR standard.

 

I hope I have understood your post in the correct way?

 

Allan

[M.Chapman]

 

 

 

Is there an easy way to avoid sharpening edges that are already high contrast? A kind of "mid range" sharpen tool or setting? If it's totally blurry or flat, don't sharpen it. If it's a high contrast edge silhouetted against the sky (for example), don't sharpen it.

 

I suppose this would need a second mask slider? The first mask slider would set the local contrast level below which sharpening isn't applied (i.e. the one LR has now). The second slider would set the local contrast level above which sharpening isn't applied. i.e. sharpening would only be applied to areas with local contrast levels in between the levels set by the two sliders?

 

I'd find that really useful and would reduce the chance of halos forming around high contrast edges when sharpening.

 

Maybe the tool already exists? Maybe it's already built into LR?

 

 

There is a "Detail" slider which will sharpen and intensify the edges of your image. If you have a highly textured image, it will emphasize the texture. So I suppose it can be used in the opposite way too.

 

I have to admit that I have never user the "Detail" slider in the sharpening tool and just leave it set at the LR standard.

 

I hope I have understood your post in the correct way?

 

Allan

 

Yes I think you've understood it.

 

I've played with the detail slider before, but hadn't thought that it might be a way of achieving what I want. Maybe it provides a way of applying extra sharpening to areas with local medium contrast without further sharpening the high contrast edges?

 

I must try some more experimentation with those sliders, especially whilst holding down the Alt key. 

[M.Chapman]

You don't need a Kindle. There is a free Kindle app for Mac and Windows which works really well - a lot better than a Kindle for photography reading as you get colour whereas the Kindle is monochrome.

 

OIC, that's useful. Although, in general, I do tend to prefer reading a paper based books. Not sure why, I just find it easier somehow.

[Betty LaRue]

 

You don't need a Kindle. There is a free Kindle app for Mac and Windows which works really well - a lot better than a Kindle for photography reading as you get colour whereas the Kindle is monochrome.

 

 

OIC, that's useful. Although, in general, I do tend to prefer reading a paper based books. Not sure why, I just find it easier somehow.

With you re: paper. I don't enjoy looking at video or written instructions on the computer, then segue to my image. Oh! Now what did he say to do? Must leave my image and go back and reread or listen to that again. Or take notes. If I take time-consuming notes, how much better to have the book open in front of me. And put a bookmark in the most useful pages. That's why, Mark!

[M.Chapman]

 

 

You don't need a Kindle. There is a free Kindle app for Mac and Windows which works really well - a lot better than a Kindle for photography reading as you get colour whereas the Kindle is monochrome.

 

OIC, that's useful. Although, in general, I do tend to prefer reading a paper based books. Not sure why, I just find it easier somehow.

With you re: paper. I don't enjoy looking at video or written instructions on the computer, then segue to my image. Oh! Now what did he say to do? Must leave my image and go back and reread or listen to that again. Or take notes. If I take time-consuming notes, how much better to have the book open in front of me. And put a bookmark in the most useful pages. That's why, Mark!

 

 

Betty, as usual you've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why.

 

PS. Did you see my earlier comment in this thread about the sharpen brush?

[M.Chapman]

 

 

 

 

Is there an easy way to avoid sharpening edges that are already high contrast? A kind of "mid range" sharpen tool or setting? If it's totally blurry or flat, don't sharpen it. If it's a high contrast edge silhouetted against the sky (for example), don't sharpen it.

 

I suppose this would need a second mask slider? The first mask slider would set the local contrast level below which sharpening isn't applied (i.e. the one LR has now). The second slider would set the local contrast level above which sharpening isn't applied. i.e. sharpening would only be applied to areas with local contrast levels in between the levels set by the two sliders?

 

I'd find that really useful and would reduce the chance of halos forming around high contrast edges when sharpening.

 

Maybe the tool already exists? Maybe it's already built into LR?

 

 

There is a "Detail" slider which will sharpen and intensify the edges of your image. If you have a highly textured image, it will emphasize the texture. So I suppose it can be used in the opposite way too.

 

I have to admit that I have never user the "Detail" slider in the sharpening tool and just leave it set at the LR standard.

 

I hope I have understood your post in the correct way?

 

Allan

 

Yes I think you've understood it.

 

I've played with the detail slider before, but hadn't thought that it might be a way of achieving what I want. Maybe it provides a way of applying extra sharpening to areas with local medium contrast without further sharpening the high contrast edges?

 

I must try some more experimentation with those sliders, especially whilst holding down the Alt key. 

 

 

I've now tried experimenting with the detail slider in LR6, but still can't really achieve what I expected, which is increased sharpening of medium contrast edges (the detail) without introducing halos on the high contrast edges. I had thought the detail slider might be a medium contrast edge enhancer. But, the amount and detail sliders seem to be sharpening in a very similar way. To exaggerate the effect I chose some extreme settings. To my eyes, these settings

 

Amount 150

Detail 25

 

give a very similar result to 

 

Amount 110

Detail 50

 

or even to

 

Amount 75

Detail 100

 

Maybe I'm missing something? Or need new glasses . If I look at 200% I can see that the 2nd and 3rd settings have very, very slightly reduced the halo whilst maintaining a similar level of sharpening, but given the large variation in my settings, I'd expected to see more pronounced differences.

 

I'll have to take a look at Martin Evening's book sometime to see if that clarifies matters.

[Bryan]

 

 

Bryan, I know that you often use legacy manual focus lenses. I find that my RAW images taken with these old lenses usually require some sharpening in order to make them presentable for QC-- i.e. they don't produce the "crispness" (for lack of a better word) of modern lenses designed for digital cameras. Do you find this to be the case?

No John, my old lenses produce crisp images that don't require any additional sharpening as compared to a modern zoom. A couple of my Olympus lenses lack a bit of contrast, the 75-150 f4 particularly so, but the detail is fine. I would rate my old Zuiko 50mm f1.8, used typically at f8, as possibly the best lens in my possession.

 

If you compare like for like images and look at the sizes of the eventual JPG files (raw - tiff - JPG), those produced by my old lenses are larger than those produced by the standard Sony zooms, which indicates to me that they are capturing more detail

 

Take a look at http://bryansphotographs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/50-mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-6.html

[Betty LaRue]

 

 

 

You don't need a Kindle. There is a free Kindle app for Mac and Windows which works really well - a lot better than a Kindle for photography reading as you get colour whereas the Kindle is monochrome.

 

 

OIC, that's useful. Although, in general, I do tend to prefer reading a paper based books. Not sure why, I just find it easier somehow.

With you re: paper. I don't enjoy looking at video or written instructions on the computer, then segue to my image. Oh! Now what did he say to do? Must leave my image and go back and reread or listen to that again. Or take notes. If I take time-consuming notes, how much better to have the book open in front of me. And put a bookmark in the most useful pages. That's why, Mark!

 

Betty, as usual you've hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why.

 

PS. Did you see my earlier comment in this thread about the sharpen brush?

Yes I did, Mark! Need to try that.

[Ed Rooney]

Now understand -- I'm not saying I've ever sharpened an image before submitting it to Alamy. That would be wrong. But talking theoretically, like in an alternate universe, say, I might consider moving the sharpness up to 30 or 31 in LR. I have a weakness. I love moving those LR sliders around.

[John Mitchell]

 

 

 

Bryan, I know that you often use legacy manual focus lenses. I find that my RAW images taken with these old lenses usually require some sharpening in order to make them presentable for QC-- i.e. they don't produce the "crispness" (for lack of a better word) of modern lenses designed for digital cameras. Do you find this to be the case?

No John, my old lenses produce crisp images that don't require any additional sharpening as compared to a modern zoom. A couple of my Olympus lenses lack a bit of contrast, the 75-150 f4 particularly so, but the detail is fine. I would rate my old Zuiko 50mm f1.8, used typically at f8, as possibly the best lens in my possession.

 

If you compare like for like images and look at the sizes of the eventual JPG files (raw - tiff - JPG), those produced by my old lenses are larger than those produced by the standard Sony zooms, which indicates to me that they are capturing more detail

 

Take a look at http://bryansphotographs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/50-mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-6.html

 

 

Interesting. Perhaps old 28mm manual focus lenses in general are not as sharp as the 50mm ones. That appears to be the case with the Minolta lenses that I'm using. I usually end up downsizing images taken with the 28mm but not ones shot with my 50mm. Unfortunately, I don't find 50mm a very useful focal length on APS-C. Maybe I'll look around for an Olympus or Pentax 28mm so that I can compare the results. I also have a 45mm Minolta "pancake" lens. It was a cheap kit lens in its day, but it is very sharp across the frame on the NEX cameras. Again, 45mm is not that useful a focal length for me.

[Bryan]

 

 

 

 

Bryan, I know that you often use legacy manual focus lenses. I find that my RAW images taken with these old lenses usually require some sharpening in order to make them presentable for QC-- i.e. they don't produce the "crispness" (for lack of a better word) of modern lenses designed for digital cameras. Do you find this to be the case?

No John, my old lenses produce crisp images that don't require any additional sharpening as compared to a modern zoom. A couple of my Olympus lenses lack a bit of contrast, the 75-150 f4 particularly so, but the detail is fine. I would rate my old Zuiko 50mm f1.8, used typically at f8, as possibly the best lens in my possession.

 

If you compare like for like images and look at the sizes of the eventual JPG files (raw - tiff - JPG), those produced by my old lenses are larger than those produced by the standard Sony zooms, which indicates to me that they are capturing more detail

 

Take a look at http://bryansphotographs.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/50-mm-lenses-on-sony-nex-6.html

 

 

Interesting. Perhaps old 28mm manual focus lenses in general are not as sharp as the 50mm ones. That appears to be the case with the Minolta lenses that I'm using. I usually end up downsizing images taken with the 28mm but not ones shot with my 50mm. Unfortunately, I don't find 50mm a very useful focal length on APS-C. Maybe I'll look around for an Olympus or Pentax 28mm so that I can compare the results. I also have a 45mm Minolta "pancake" lens. It was a cheap kit lens in its day, but it is very sharp across the frame on the NEX cameras. Again, 45mm is not that useful a focal length for me.

 

 

Just got back from a few days away.

 

Yes the 28s (and I have a small collection, tried Pentax, Olympus and Canon - currently using a Pentax f2.8 M) are not as good as the 50s (yet to find a bad one).  I find that none are razor sharp at the edges, but they still produce JPGs that are larger than those I get from the Sony 16-50 zoom, which is perhaps a tad better at the extremes. The images from the 28s also seem to have more life about them. I know that you have the earlier Sony zoom which is possibly a superior piece of glass.

 

I don't use the 50 as often as the 28 , but I quite like the 75mm equivalent focal length, it compresses the perspective a bit, good for some landscape shots etc.