Capture SHARPENING in ACR?????????????

Capture Sharpening in ACR???
OK, after going back and forth with Jeff Shewe a few times here on the forums (and doing some tests and a variety of additional study) I am becoming converted to believing that some "Capture Sharpening" in ACR (before interpolating a file substantially in PS) when done RIGHT can actually improve the
ultimate quality potential of a large, high res print. Believe me, this is new thinking to me. I would like this thread to be anything and everything, any experienced folks would like to throw into the mix regarding ACR "Capture Sharpening."
Questions, observations, links to more information...
This is because I want to absolutely master it and the knowledge of it. I'll start out below with some questions and concerns. Thank you anyone who contributes in any way.
Mark

Jeff, I have questions for you, if you don't mind...?
OK, I spent the last two days re-reading Bruce Fraser's wonderful book "Real World Image Sharpening" two
more times (I am certified to teach it now!) in attempt to make sure I have every word of the book understood and mastered in my head and in practice (with a twist of my own here and there).
But after reading it, a general question seems to nag me. Since sharpening does not really add any true
detail to a print, but instead, increases the
perception or illusion of detail by artificially increasing contrast in the form of halos specifically at
edges...
And because your general recommendation to sharpen at 100% view, just
until the image looks "good" without doing any damage to the image, or over-sharpening...
(BTW, for some peoples info, I make large to very large, high end, high res, continuous tone, landscape gallery prints)...
I am having a hard time understanding the
threshold of "damage" to do (or not to do) to an image file in ACR, by essentially increasing contrast halos, which in of themselves, it seems, are a sort of "damage"
if you will?
Maybe there is a book(s) or article(s) or something out there that can help me figure out how to take "Capture Sharpening" right up to its limitation without going over??? I guess I'm needing more
detailed explanation about how to figure out this threshold?
Another question...?
Can or does ACR sharpening (or is there a way in ACR sharpening) constrain the sharpening to specific tonal ranges (like when we use USM on a layer with the "blend if" sliders set to protect the top highlight and bottom shadow tones)?This allows the image to handle more sharpening with less damage.
The reason I ask, is because my main concern with "Capture Sharpening" is that I might take the haloing to a certain level, which may end up
limiting the amount of additional sharpening I can do effectively (without damaging the image) in PS after up-sizing, because the halos have reached towards, or close to black and white... (hopefully I can find a better way to re-word that last sentence)...
Sorry if I am asking too many questions... But that is one reason for forums, right, to mull over and learn about issues? I admit, I am an obsessive quality freak with my prints (anyone hear of Christopher Berkett? - I consider myself, sort of, in the same vein as him in terms of the technical quality of prints he strives to make) and I am always on a constant search for as close to perfection as possible, even if it pains me (yet, it is a pleasure!). I know its a sickness, but an enjoyable one!

Similar Messages

Easy capture sharpening in ACR 6

After reading most of the books available on ACR and sharpening, including Jeff's latest, and after having dinked with this stuff for many years, I've come to a startling conclusion, at least to me. Setting Amount = 150, Radius=1. Detail = 0, and Masking = 0 seems to work well for CAPTURE sharpening on all of my images. And I'm including low and high iso, "high frequency" and portrait, etc.
I capitalized capture because to me these settings work well on the initial image prep, narrowing the light/dark transitions without adding any discernable halo. Doing as is generally recommended, bringing up Detail to add a slight halo visible at 400% but not at 100%, with corresponding Amount and Radius adjustments, can certainly produce a slightly sharper appearing image on the monitor, but IMO one has now at least partially crossed over into output sharpening for the monitor.
Another advantage of the 150-1-0-0 approach is the lack of any artifacts as one continues to process the image, particularly upsampling for printing. For noisy images I do end up adjusting Masking as I interatively apply NR, but again in general the settings work well. And of course setting them up as ACR defaults simplifies processing. I'm curious as to whether others have arrived at a similar conclusion, or not. I haven't been doing this as a default very long, and wonder if I'll come across pitfalls later.
Richard Southworth

OK, well I just tried this on a landscape image that is basically almost all high/mid frequency:
Amount 150
Radius 0.5
Detail 0
Masking 0 (although I would mask appropriately with any image)
and then compared it to
Amount 35
Radius 0.5
Detail 100
Masking 0
Critical viewing was at 100, 200, 300 and 400% in ACR.
I am really surprised at this! Although the sharpening is extremely close to the same amount in appearance (at 100%) the first settings with detail at 0, to my eye has a lot cleaner edges (less halowing) and definitely less artifacting in smoother areas (even w no masking). Basically at the edges of the image there seems to be less feathering of pixels transitioning them (may interpolate up better this way?).
I will do some more testing, to see how the file then handles Sharpening for Output (with the new datail at 0 settings). I am thinking at this point that your detail at 0 idea might be sound. Less artifacting and cleaner edges seems to mean that the file will take more aggressive sharpening after up sizing it, and then the grain simulation I use to disguise the artifacting may be able to be a little less aggressive.
Question, do you still approach the masking (ACR) the same way?
Lastly, I tried using the first settings of sharpening on an image interpolated to max size in ACR (about 20MP) and then tried the same capture sharpening settings on an image at native size (about 12MP) then interpolated up to 20MP using PS Smoother (remembering that ACR applies the sharpening after the uprez). I have found the ACR uprez to have more detail at ultra zoom levels. But if ACR applies the capture sharpening after the ACR uprez (if my reading is right, Jeff S said that) and the other is capture sharpened at native pixel size and then uprezzed with Bicubic Smoother, aren't I just comparing apples with oranges? Also, when taking a image from 12.9 to 19.5MP is the ACR interpolating using its algorithm that is like Smoother?

ACR 4.41 capture sharpening

Hi I have a question for the experts here. I have XP SP3 PSCS3 ACR 4.41 I am learning Raw with the wonderful Real World Camera Raw with CS3 by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.
In the book it is recommended to do my capture sharpening with ACR. Currently I have been using the excellent Photokit Sharpener (1.2.6) plug in for PS,after finishing all of my editing in Raw and converting to PSD. Can anyone suggest equivalent settings in ACR 4.41
Amount radius, detail masking options.
for each option in the digital hi-Res capture sharpening set?
superfine, narrow, medium and wide edge
I have an idea that Jeff Schewe might be involved in Photokit too??
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Kind regards
Geoff

>No, there really is no set of settings since it depends on the source capture and the subject matter...the best bet is to make it look "good" at 100%...
It seems strange to me that useful presets are possible with PKSharpener but not with the new ACR sharpening work flow, since both are based on the same principles: Bruce Fraser's sharpening methods.
While some degree of fine tuning is always desirable, Jeff does give some suggestions for landscape and portrait sharpening presets, both in the ACR with PSCS3 book (pages 170-184) and in the Camera Raw tutorial. I think these are for Canon 1DsMII resolution.
In his seminal sharpening book (Image Sharpening with CS2), Bruce Fraser discusses in some detail the settings for source (radius according to camera MP count and amount according to the strength of the blur filter). He also discusses sharpening for subject content in some depth. The OP implied high resolution, so Jeff's suggestions would be a good starting point in building presets for a given camera and subject matter, and the theoretical basis given in Bruce's book goes a long way into how to make rational adjustments.

Capture sharpening and radius setting?

While I am getting better at sharpening per the Fraser-Schewe approach, I certainly still have a lot to learn.
I understand that landscape shots should usually have a radius in the range of 0.5 to 0.8 for capture sharpening (source + content) in ACR.
What are the most important factors to consider in selecting a radius in this range for capture sharpening of landscape shots? I don't think this topic was really addressed in the Real World Camera Raw - CS3 book.
Yes, I will continue to experiment on my own, but some guidance would be most useful.
BTW, my raw captures average 6MB (Canon Powershot S60, small sensor) and for landscape capture sharpening in ACR I am using radius=0.7, amount=60, detail=40.

Joseph one advantage of ACR over other RAW converters is the visual feedback, at least with a fairly fast computer. I would advice to practice more and not to rely on recommended settings. These are a good starting points to shorten the practice period but image content can be more important than blanket statements like "settings for landscapes".
Leaves were mentioned above so let me give an example. A desert shot will qualify as landscape but so will a golf course with grass and various foliage. Green foliage can give strange sharpening effects and often requires very different settings than say red sand and sandstone.
In some cases selective sharpening of selected image areas may be required for best results. Not necessarily as a start but perhaps worth the trouble for "best shot".

Noise, Sharpening and ACR

I have recently switched from processing my raw files from Aperture to Adobe Camera Raw 4.4.1. I shoot landscapes with the Canon 1Ds Mark III, low ISO, and wish to make very large prints (30-50"). After reading "Real World Camera Raw with CS3" it seems like the authors say that capture sharpening can be accomplished in ACR instead of what I was doing right after Aperture (with sharpening off)- that is, using Ninja Noise and then capture sharpen with Photokit Sharpener. But if I now capture sharpen in ACR I won't be able to use Ninja Noise since one should not sharpen noise. Right? So does this mean that if I capture sharpen in ACR that I should also use ACR's Noise Reduction? Or should I turn off ACR's Sharpening and Noise Reduction and do as I did before - use Ninja and PhotoKit sharpening after raw processing? (I hope this makes sense - I'm still learning the basics). Also any rough settings for what I'm doing would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

>Not at all. There's ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that workflow. I would recommend it myself.
>[EDIT] except I prefer Noise Ninja most of the time, and Noiseware in a few cases.
I've discussed this matter with Gordon on another thread, but a few points are worth repeating here. On page 157 of his Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop PSCS2, Bruce Fraser states, "Always do noise reduction before sharpening. If you sharpen, you'll almost certainly make the noise worse; the noise reduction tool will have to work harder, and will probably wipe out the sharpening you did anyway."
Most noise reduction tools do not eliminate noise but merely make it less visible. When you sharpen after noise reduction, some or much of the noise may reappear. If you do the sharpening first, this problem is eliminated, but the effect of your sharpening may also be wiped out.
Sharpening and noise reduction are basically inverse processes and work against another. Some of these problems may be eased with the use of masks. You can use a surface mask during noise reduction to help confine the NR to smooth areas where the noise is most noticeable and keep the NR away from the edges where sharpness would suffer. Similarly, you can use an edge mask during sharpening to help confine the sharpening to the edges.
That said, Noise Ninja can work reasonably well on JPEG images that have been sharpened in camera as they often are. In this case, one has to use a different noise profile for the best results.
Bill

Jeff Schewe - More capture sharpening examples?

Jeff,
I confess to being a bit frustrated at how difficult it is proving to be to learn how to apply optimal capture sharpening (source+content) in ACR (v. 4.4.1). Yes, I have studied Bruces sharpening book and the CS3 version of Real World Camera Raw. My goal is to decide on good settings for capture sharpening based on (1) image type and (2) my capture size and then create presets that I can use to apply that sharpening.
One thing that I believe would speed up my learning is if I could study examples of DNG files with proper capture sharpening applied according to the approach Bruce and you have written about. Recently I downloaded the example files from the RWCR website only to be disappointed to discover that just 4 of the 10 images seem to have capture sharpening applied.
Is there any possibility you would be willing to post additional DNG files with capture sharpening to help those of us that are trying to learn how to apply optimal capture sharpening in ACR but remain in a bit of a fog as to how to achieve that worthy goal? (I shoot mostly nature and will be expanding to sports and portraits.)
I did read this long thread from 2007 where Mike posted a couple of raws. http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3c0347de/111
You responded with your choice for sharpening settings and that was very informative. Im sure a few more examples would greatly help me and, I suspect, many others. If you are not inclined to do so, thats fine - no hard feelings. Just thought I would ask.
And to all others - I surely do not intend to be ignoring your wisdom and would value your advice also. I am making a special request to Jeff since I am trying to master the methods that he has been promoting.
In particular, I am trying to get a better understanding of the radius setting in the context of capture sharpening in ACR.
1. For a given camera model, does the optimum radius setting in ACR depend only on whether the image is classified as have a low, medium or high frequency of edges? Or does the optimum radius setting also depend on the settings for detail, masking and/or possibly other items such as clarity, contrast, noise suppression, etc?
2. My present camera produces raws that average about 6MB. I plan to buy a canon 450D/XSi and I understand those raws will average around 15MB. When I am processing those larger files should I expect the optimal radius settings in ACR for low/medium/high frequency images to go up, go down, or stay the same as compared to processing my 6MB files?
3. For a given camera model, how do I go about determining the optimal ACR radius setting for low-, medium-, and high-frequency images? Is there some testing I can perform to help me zero in on this?
4. One message I got from Bruces sharpening book (p.108-113) is that in terms of content sharpening, once the optimum radius is set then there will be basically one setting for amount that will yield the best result. Do you find this rule to still be true when doing capture sharpening in ACR? In particular, I am wondering whether the existence of the detail slider has changed this rule.
My grateful thanks for any insights.

> My goal is to decide on good settings for capture sharpening based on (1) image type and (2) my capture size and then create presets that I can use to apply that sharpening.
The goal is to make the image look good (no over/under sharpening) when at 100% zoom.
The settings will generally follow the basic use of higher radius for lower frequency image and lower radius for higher frequency. Thus portraits would have high radius; 1.2-1.5 and landscape images .8-.5 with the amounts set to "look good" when combined with Detail and Edge Mask.
BTW, image VB7J4404 was the only image specifically included in the RWCR downloads for showing sharpening...Martin Evening's image was not made available on purpose (because it's a model shot and it's by Martin who didn't wish to allow a raw file to be downloaded).

PhotoKit Sharpener or ACR?

Hi All:
Ive been trying out PhotoKit sharpener and so far Im impressed with its
performance. But I have a question about how it compares with the sharpener
in the latest version of Raw Converter. I know that the sharpener in RC is
meant to be a capture sharpener, but does anyone have an opinion on which
is better RCs or PhotoKit sharpener capture sharpener? At this point I
cant make up my mind.
John Passaneau

PhotoKit sharpener has three main components according to the sharpening methods Bruce Fraser developed: capture, creative, and output. The capture round of sharpening includes sharpening for source (camera MP count, anti-aliasing filter, etc) and image content (high-, mid- and low frequency). Many photographers use this round of sharpening to create a master image for later use.
The creative sharpening has tools applied selectively to portions of the image--e.g. sharpening brushes, depth of field, smoothing, etc. They must be applied individually and with good judgement to the image and can not be automated.
Output sharpening is not image or source dependent, but is determined by the image size and resolution, the type of output device (half-tone, continuous tone, injket, etc) and the paper type (glossy, matte, etc). You can try to do this on your own or with other tools available on the net, but Bruce did a great deal of testing to get the optimum numbers and this information is proprietary.
The new ACR sharpening features were developed in conjunction with Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe and apply the concept of capture sharpening to ACR. I don't know which capture sharpening approach is better, but, considering their source, I would expect them to be similar. The ACR sharpening integrates better into the work flow and is metadata based--you don't have to store a separate image with the capture sharpening.
Even if you use the ACR sharpening, you would probably find the creative and output modules of PhotoKit useful.

Input (capture) sharpening workflow in ACR 4.3.1

At the suggestion of another member, I'm posting this here in addition to posting on Windows Photoshop forum:
I shoot raw, always, and have avoided using Camera Raw in my workflow until recently (4.3.1), because so much time and organization effort is now saved by including Camera Raw 4.3.1 in my workflow, where it wasn't in previous versions.
My problem is that I had been trained in numerous Canon tutorials to always perform input sharpening as the first step in the workflow, using a radius of 0.3 and an amount of 300 in Photoshop CS2, in order to remove the effects of the camera sensor's anti-alias filter.
This is only possible in Photoshop, since the Camera Raw controls limit those parameters to 0.5 and 150. My workflow is first forced into Photoshop proper followed by Camera Raw, if I am to follow Canon's recommendation, which means I lose one of the principle benefits of using Camera Raw 4.3.1.
I have reviewed many posts and tutorials relating to sharpening in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop, and none of these documents refer to input sharpening as part of the workflow, but to the use of sharpening as a creative tool in image manipulation or for optimizing for media, etc.
Thanks for any advice.

Guy,
first thing to note, the Amount and Radius parameters in ACR and in Photoshop's USM filter are on different scales; you cannot compare their numerical values directly (Jeff, please correct me if I'm wrong!).
Second thing, of course you're never supposed to apply Sharpening for Source first (in Photoshop) and then take the file back to ACR to tweak it further. If you don't want to use ACR's new capture sharpening feature then disable it and fully develop your raw image in ACR, applying white balance, exposure, brightness, saturation, noise reduction, and lens correction settings as required---and THEN, to the fully developed TIFF, PSD, or JPEG file, you'd apply Sharpening for Source first thing in Photoshop.
By the way, I don't like ACR's new sharpening feature too much. Lately I developed the notion that Sharpening for Content (as presented in Bruce's four-stage sharpening workflow, i. e. Source, Content, Creative, and Output; see his book "Real-World Image Sharpening") conceptually belongs into one category with Creative Sharpening, not with Sharpening for Source. So the concept of Capture Sharpening---which combines Sharpening for Source and Sharpening for Content into one single sharpening stage---seems reasonable technically but not conceptually. The parameters for Sharpening for Source depend solely on the properties of the image-acquiring device (i. e. scanner or digital camera). The parameters for Sharpening for Content and for Creative Sharpening both depend on image content as well as on the author's taste and intentions. In my opinion, Sharpening for Content *is* a sort of a kind of Creative Sharpening---so combining Sharpening for Source and Sharpening for Content into one Capture Sharpening stage makes sense only when processing one image at a time (for the one-image-at-a-time workflow, I do like, and use, ACR's capture sharpening feature).
When processing a whole batch of raw images which come all from the same source, it usually makes sense to automatically apply the same degree of Sharpening for Source to all of them but to apply any further sharpening (namely for Content and Creative) individually to each image. That's why I usually disable ACR's sharpening altogether and stick to Bruce's four-stage sharpening workflow, applying Sharpening for Source via Photoshop's batch automation.
-- Olaf

Anti deconvolution - ACR Capture Sharpening

anti deconvolution - ACR Capture Sharpening
I cannot remember where I came across this word "anti deconvolution" (likely years back debating here about how best to use Capture Sharpening). I am considering making training videos on "The Ultimate Sharpening Workflow for Fine Art Prints" and want to make sure what I am saying is sound and maybe even accurate! So I am double checking my facts.
I believe I was told by someone here that when the Capture Sharpening Radius is set to 0.5 and the detail set to 100 (with the appropriate amount dialed in) that it does something called "anti deconvolution" and can actually extract a very small amount of real detail (as apposed to simply sharpening halos) out of a raw file.
Is that a sound statement?
BTW, I am a professional landscape photographer (big fine art enlargements) and my preferred way to use capture sharpening is by double/triple processing raw files for various areas then masking them accordingly in PS. But since I am almost always trying to emphasize the ultra fine high frequency details in an image (except sky's and soft moving water) I have found that:
Amount (varying)
Radius 0.5
Detail 100
Masking (varying)
Has worked best for me.
Cheers.

Noel,
Me too!
I get the feeling that the way it works (R 0.5 / D 100) combined with the fact than deconvolution sharpening is being implemented that actual/real detail (even if minimal) is being accessed.
Side note: I am even starting to experiment with an ultra, ultra small amount of very fine grain simulation (amount on 5 - almost completely undetectable) at the raw stage as a way to create the illusion of even more detail (I have not completed the testing on that).
Of course for fine art printing (after the uprez and sharpening routine) a more aggressive grain simulation at various amounts and types are used as a last step to create the illusion of more detail in a print as well as a more organic look.
Cheers

Capture Sharpen (and other questions)?

I have been a very big advocate of capture sharpening for fine art workflow for more than a few years now (landscape fine art gallery enlargements). I was under the impression that in ACR (7.1) by using the Radius to the left (0.5) and Detail to the right (100) I was maximizing the deconvolution aspect of sharpening and maybe even drawing out a hair more real detail from the raw file.
Today I did a test on a high frequency raw image (trees) and had my settings at Amount 45, Radius 0.5, Detail 0, and masking at 20. But then I also did it on the same image, this way: I brought a second version of the raw file into PS with no capture sharpening, and saved it as a tiff, then I brought that tiff back into ACR 7.1 and then did the capture sharpening. In Photoshop CS6 I put them on top of each other as layers (one raw sharpened and one tiff sharpened) and at all viewing distances they were exactly the same to my eye (I did notice that the histograms of each were very, very slightly different).
But I could not see a single pixel or edge change anywhere in the image even at 1600% viewing distance. This seems to blow away my impression about deconvolution sharpening actually drawing out more real detail from a raw file. I totally understand that sharpening is not real detail, but on this forum years ago I came to believe that somehow a bit more real detail might be accessed in raw by the aforementioned settings. Any thoughts?
Second question: do you really think there is a quantitative quality difference in detail (or the illusion of) in an image that has capture sharpening applied in ACR (7.1) at its native size, then is enlarged substantially with further rounds of sharpening and grain simulation in the end (versus just sizing it up soft and doing all the sharpening at the end)? I did testing on this years ago and it seemed to be noticably better overall. I guess I'm just second guessing it again.
My basic workflow is capture sharpen Radius 05. / Detail 100, then upsize with Smoother (40, 50, 60, 70 inches...) then do some moderate high pass, then advanced use of unsharp mask (LAB - L channel - or Luminosity - RGB - also blending/blend if sliders for fall off if necessary) then ACR grain simulation (on a seperate layer - not to create grainy photos - but create the illusion of more detail and to camouflage artifacting). I believe after years of testing and practice this seems to be about as good as it gets for my content.
Lastly, smart sharpen... I have not used this much, but do you think this workflow might benefit from using it instead of USM (with the more deconvolution - lens blur/more accurate) type of sharpen near the end)?
Side note: for those involved with focus bracketing (for increased depth of field with the sharpest f/stop) it is common knowledge that capture sharpening at the raw stage (before the Auto Align and Auto Blend in PS) confuses the auto blend algorithm as to what are the real sharper pixels. So, we don't capture sharpen those images (this is common practice).
And after blending the images (Auto Blend) we usually just size up (for enlargement) and go. Now I am thinking that after the focus blending is finished and the file is flattened it might be a good idea to bring that tif file back into ACR and apply a little bit of capture sharpening before the upsize. Does that make sense to you?
Cheers for your time and feedback!
Message linebreaks added by: PECourtejoie

Disclaimer: I did not entirely understand the original post, and maybe some of this does not apply in your multi-step process, so take with salt...
ACRFREAK wrote:
With low ISO shots (100) I always try to use the least noise reduction possible in ACR (less is more approach) which means on correctly exposed images ("to the right") on Canon cameras, my ACR settings are often 0 on luminance and 0-5 on color noise.
At ISO 100, I rarely use any luminance noise reduction, however my experience is that even under ideal circumstances including low ISO, a modicum of color noise reduction is still essential for optimum image quality. - it is almost never desirable to set color noise reduction to zero, IMO - YMMV. (Note: in NX2 - you don't even get a choice about it - (true) color noise reduction will be applied, as Nikon sees fit).
Note: ACR's color noise reduction algorithm is image adaptive (it's more "aggressive" on higher ISO shots). You shouldn't see much (if any real) detail loss with color noise reduction at 25 on ISO 100 shots, eh?
ACRFREAK wrote:
My theory is that I am trying to keep a much of the fine detail as possible. Also the reason I like the 0.5 radius and 100 detail.
In my opinion, ideally, the sharpen settings should depend on the photo - type, and inherent focus... (.5/100 may be great for ultra-clean, ultra-sharp landscapes, but may not be appropriate for portraits...)
But different strokes for different folks. (and I don't know what kinds of photos you mainly (or only) shoot).
Rob

Capture Sharpening for Canon 1Ds II

Hi. I have been away from my photography for some time and am slowly coming back up to speed on things new. For now my focus is on capture sharpening for images shot with my 1Ds II. Previously I used Photokit with variable results and an action combining Smart Sharpen and the sharpen feature embedded in Reduce Noise. (I had, in fact, had a number of discussions with Bruce Fraser a long time back about the results I was getting with Photokit and the 1Ds II. It was my disappointment with the results from Photokit that led to a preference for the results of the SS/RN action.)
I've just read the following thread with interest:
http://forums.adobe.com/click.jspa?searchID=250337&objectType=2&objectID=1207380
It seems things have moved along a lot. I currently have CS3 (ACR 4.6, the latest I believe). My question is have things have moved on beyond the discussion contained in the above thread? I am not focused, at this point, on upscaling/downscaling but rather simply on getting the best full pixel base image.
Is there anything in CS4 (ACR 5.x) which would improve capture sharpening?
(BTW I have previously used Photozoom to upscale. The thought of scaling in ACR seems incompatible with then image-editing independent of output size so that the final work can then be output to any desired size at any point in time.)
Finally, for output sharpening I used Photokit. I have not yet purchased Lightroom. I have yet to fully evaluate the benefits although these seem to be purely workflow oriented rather than 'functional'. One thing in the above thread piqued my interest though and since it's related I will ask: are there significant advantages to output sharpening in Lightroom versus Photokit?
Thanks in advance
Steve

Steve Kale wrote:
Only if one can get an image to final output satisfaction are they useful. I suspect that's a minority of cases but maybe ACR has developed way beyond my current impression.
Well, I guess you haven't downloaded the demo and actually used ACR 5 yet huh? Many, many photographers find with the addition of local tone/color control the numbers of images that MUST go through Photoshop has been drastically cut. So, for those people who can do most everything in ACR, there's the useful ability to do output sharpening. Very handy when you are doing a batch save of a bunch f images intended for a web page or prints at a lab. The only caveat is that for the output sharpening to be effective, you must be able to spec the final size in ACR. That's a bit crude at the moment but should improve in the future...
As for Photoshop having output sharpening as well...I don't disagree...but that's a separate business issue that I can't really get into. Hopefully we will be able to work something out down the road.
The issue with Advanced B&W printing is an Epson issue to fix...it can't be fixed by Adobe (or at least shouldn't be). However, it works just fine if you use intentional double color management and set the CS4 to handle color management and send the driver Adobe RGB (as the output profile) and then also set the driver to Advanced B&W. This works for CS4 and Lightroom 2.x.

Sharpening in ACR 7.1

I'm reading the part of Martin Evening's "Adobe Photoshop CS6 for Photographers" dealing with sharpening in ACR. As in his previous edition for CS5, he seems to be saying that putting the Detail slider at 100 is akin to USM in PS, while placing it at 0 minimizes halos. I would gather this means the 0 setting is deconvolution sharpening.
As I recall, Eric Chan indicated that the settings were the other way round: 0 was akin to USM and 100 deconvolution. Which is which?
thanks,
grampus45

grampus45 wrote:
This would suggest that a significant use of masking would be appropriate in applying capture sharpening. But many things I read, and many suggested 'presets,' tend to downplay or even ignore masking.
I would argue against the term "significant" and more likely call it a beneficial use of masking. You want to be sharpening edges and generally don't want to sharpen surfaces (which are broad areas of tone/color). The default for masking is zero because, well, Thomas decided that no masking should be applied at default but almost any image will benefit from having some edge masking used.
How much really depends on the edge frequency of the image…if you are shooting portraits you want a fairly high edge masking (40 or above). If you are shooting low ISO landscape images with a high frequency of image texture, you probably want less; 10-25 or so. But…that depends on the amount, radius, detail and noise reduction settings…you really can't give a range of settings for any single parameter because they all depend on each other...
grampus45 wrote:
We know from Bruce Fraser what the general principles of sharpening are. What we need now is someone like Bruce to write a treatise on how to enact those principles, such as they are possible, with the sharpening facility in ACR. We can attempt to infer what's happening by moving the sliders themselves, but it's really going to take someone with "inside knowledge" to do the job properly. So far we only have vague hand waving.
I did...when I revised Bruce's Real World Image Sharpening book...which came out just before the PV 2010 noise reduction functionality (unfortunately). The aim is to get the image to look good at 1:1. That is the intent and design of the Detail panel in ACR/LR. And yes, it's tough because there are tons of cameras and tons of image types to deal with...yes, it's tough to evaluate just enough sharpening but not too much. You can't accomplish that with a few presets...you need to educate your eyes...no way around that.
And the other 2 phases of image sharpening, creative and output sharpening are further complicating factors. The ACR/LR creative sharpening is primitive but useful. The output sharpening in LR is actually very, very good. It's less good in ACR because of the limitations of the size functionality in ACR. Output sharpening MUST be done at the final output size...and sizing in ACR other than native are problematic.
The bottom line is to make the image look good at 1:1. Don't try to do over/under sharpening in the Detail panel, don't try to sharpen for effect or do creative sharpening and don't worry at all about output sharpening. If you are shooting low ISO on high rez cameras, you can sharpen more aggressively, the smaller the capture size and higher the ISO the more you need to be careful of setting the sharpening and noise reduction correctly.
The only generalizations I can make os that you do want to adjust all of the following; Amount, Radius, Detail, Edge Masking and Luminance Noise Reduction to get an optimal capture sharpening result. The numbers will vary by camera size, lens type, Exposure, ISO and shooting techniques. YMWV...

Capture sharpening ?

I am going to try using ACR for capture sharpening with a 1dsMkIII after regularly using PS. Does anyone have a any recommendations for initial settings to start with for this camera? And, possibly for several shooting situations ie. landscape, fine detail, portrait.
Thanks for any suggestions
Jonathan

For a brief introduction, you can look at Jeff Schewe's writeup on camera raw 4.1. It is a bit dated, but many of the basics are the same:
http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/
You could also look at his ACR book if you are merely interested in ACR:
http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Camera-Adobe-Photoshop/dp/0321580133/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s =books&qid=1237065801&sr=8-2

Capture Sharpening & Lens Corrections- Does the order matter?

Okay, I think I understand the concept that all of the changes made in Lightroom are metadata edits, and so it does not matter what order you make changes to your image. So using the lightroom controls for sharpening and lens corrections (chromatic aberration, etc.) is just fine.
But what if you are doing your capture sharpening outside of lightroom, say using photokit sharpener in photoshop?
Does the use of the lens correction tools in lightroom negatively affect the capture sharpening done later in photoshop? Ideally I'd like to do all of the possible image adjustments in lightroom, without doing any sharpening, and then head over to photoshop for capture sharpening and any further photoshopping that is necessary.
But if I do lens correction changes in lightroom, will that cause a problem? Do I need to forego doing any lens correcting in lightroom if I am going to be doing capture sharpening in photoshop after the fact?
Thanks for the help.

I shoot in Raw. I only recently got Photokit Sharpener, so I am trying to work that in to my workflow, in which case I would turn off Lightroom's default sharpening.
I think I may be worried about something that isn't really a problem, but I had heard that when you adjust for chromatic aberrations, it adjusts the color channels, for example moving the red channel in relation to the blue channel, in order to eliminate the color fringing. If that is the case, then I was wondering whether sharpening applied outside of Lightroom would have to be applied after the chromatic aberration adjustments had been made or if it could be applied before without causing problems.
My current plan is to just apply the capture sharpening in Photoshop after all LR adjustments have been made, and hopefully that will work out fine.

Capture Sharpening in Aperture

Is there a good source for information about capture shapening within Aperture? Using edge sharpening, it seems to do a reasonable job for files that will not be enlarged much, but when I try to print even 16x20 from a 6 MP file, the images seem either soft, or if I boost the sharpening, I see artifacts and crunchy pixels. If I export files without sharpening and use Photokit Sharpener for capture and output sharpening, all is well. I have been using Lightroom since it was in beta, and I am very happy with the capture sharpening there. I'd like to get similar results from Aperture if I am going to use it regularly. (Perhaps the rumored 2.0 update will take care of that)

There really isn't an Aperture equivalent to Photokit and its one of the big drawbacks of Aperture for me. The problem is that to do "Bruce Fraser" type sharpening you need to do output sharpening at the desired output resolution. There is no way to do this in the current version of Aperture.
However, I have a workaround that sort of works. I alter the sharpening in Raw Fine tuning to do capture sharpening and then I use Edge Sharpening for output sharpening. I got the settings by starting with unsharpened raw images. I exported them to Photoshop and used Photokit to do capture sharpening. I then went back to Aperture and adjusted the sharpening in raw fine tuning to match ( as well as I could) the results in Photoshop.
Output sharpening was harder because it depends on the size you will print at, but I followed a similar procedure except in this case I tested parameters by exporting the file from Aperture at various sizes after sharpening and then comparing to a version sharpened with Photokit. I did this at two sizes, full size and roughly half-size at 300 dpi.
I went through this because I was doing an Aperture book and I didn't want to have to export each photo in the book to Photoshop for sharpening. It worked pretty well both with Apple printing and SharedInk printing.
The settings I used are below, but they were created for a 6 Megapixel DLSR ( a Canon D60). You would have to alter the settings for different cameras, though the approach to finding the settings would be the same:
Capture Sharpening:
Wide Edge
Intensity:0.60
Edges:0.63
Medium Edge
Intensity:0.60
Edges:1.0
Output Sharpening;
Using Edge Sharpen:
Full size
Intensity:0.5
Edges:1.0
Fall off:0.7
Half-size
Intensity:0.5
Edges:1.0
Fall off:1.0
The settings worked better for full size than half-size.
If Apple is listening then I would suggest that they read Bruce Fraser's Real World Sharpening book and allow Aperture to match the multi-pass sharpening approach he outlines. That would primarily involve changes in edge sharpening, by allowing it to be done at final output resolution and allowing edge sharpen settings to be sensitive to output resolution.
-Will Rabinovich

Capture SHARPENING in ACR?????????????

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for