LR Sharpening Workflow

Bruce Fraser (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357-2.html) recommended a three-step sharpening workflow: Input, Creative, and Output. It seems to me that I get good results by sharpening mildly in LR, then going to Photoshop for targeted sharpening. After doing other necessary adjustments and resizing, I save the image back to LR, and then I use LR for Output sharpening, usually for monitor and web viewing.
I noticed that I can sharpen in LR 1.3 and match the results of images Output sharpened in Photoshop. This approach eliminates extra steps in Photoshop.
Am I missing something? Would Photoshop produce better results? In what way? Do we still need Sharpening Plug-ins? Why? The result appear very similar to me. Perhaps the new Sharpening algorithm in LR are capable of excellent quality and it can be used for excellent results.

Thank you John
My images begin with 3872 x 2592 Nef which I convert to a DNG. I figure that a 1200 x 803 is good for the viewing on my computer, so I reduce the images to that size to keep on my computer. Lightroom then changes the size to 700 x 370, with variations based on cropping when I upload them to the Web.
I am new to image processing and I do most of my viewing on my computer, not on prints. I notice that I can make dramatic changes that I can see on my monitor with appropriate sharpening. At this point, I am still struggling with appropriate sharpening, and other adjustment, but I am producing images that are more pleasing recently. Many of the books I have studied suggest adjusting the photo until it looks good. It is a long, involved process to know what looks good. Often it looks good, but then I find that it could look tremendously better. I have taken to studying images in magazines such as National Geographic where I assume the images are the best they can be.

Similar Messages

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

Lightroom to Photoshop CC noise/sharpening workflow question

Most of my images I process 100% in Lightroom. HOWEVER, I do at times need to send and image from Lightroom over to Photoshop CC to finish. Then when finished in CC the image goes back to Lightroom 5 as a TIFF. My question is should I apply sharpening and noise reduction in LR5 prior to sending the image to CC? Or should I apply sharpening and noise reduction after the end of the round trip to CC and back when the image arrives back in LR5 as a TIFF. And yes I have tried a number of different ways. I have tried sending the same image from LR5 with sharpening and NR applied as I would if I were finished. I have sent the same image over to CC with just the default sharpen and noise settings AND I have zeroed out the settings. I sent all images to CC as 16bit TIFF. I tried those various ways and have gotten mixed results. So I was looking for someone with expertise as to what the best procedure is to take when using this workflow.

Getting mixed results is normal as it depends on the initial image and what happens in PS. If you’re changing the overall toning or local contrast in PS then the noise will be different and probably needs more tweaking afterwards.
I would generally go part way toward my final Detail settings in LR, then do what I have to do in PS, then do more in either PS or LR as appropriate.
What I usually do in PS is use Smart Sharpen after I’ve resized down to whatever my final size is—usually my screen size for desktop wallpaper, because I like how PS SS works, an in that case I’ve probably done all my Detail work in LR and only do the resize and SS in PS.

Sharpening workflow sharedink book

I am just not sure how much to sharpen in lightroom for printing (i am going to print a book using sharedink)
i also use the fred miranda plug in for sharpening in photoshop
in lightroom shouldl i leave it as the default setting
use the presets
go to zero?
then do a little in photoshop?
or do it all in lightroom
fyi,the subject matter is scenery and birds although i don't think that matters.
thanks diana

Yeah that's what I do. I export to a prophotoRGB file that I open in PS, where I scale, sharpen and convert to the final profile of the labs I use. Strangely enough,
I just today wrote up a little workflow for this. I only do this for larger prints. For small prints I just send sRGB files to the lab directly from Lightroom's output.

Sharpening export workflow question

I have a sharpening workflow question. Say I have pictures from a portrait session I just finished. I have to send 10 pictures the client ordered to a print lab and I also will make some small facebook sized pictures and upload them to my business facebook page. The level of sharpening needed for large prints (I upload to print lab as RGB JPEGS) and sharpening needed for the very small sRGB facebook-sized pictures is different. In Lightroom I have the option to set the sharpening on export and have a bunch of presets that alter the export size, color space, sharpening, etc(WHCC print lab, facebook, Client CD, etc). I don't see how to do that in Aperture. I see they have the option if you have a printer, but not on normal export.
For those of you that have to export batches of pictures in multiple different sizes (with different levels of sharpening), what is your workflow? I could use some photoshop droplets/actions after Aperture export but I was hoping there was a way to avoid the extra step. Am I overlooking an export feature? The BorderFX plug-in looks like the only other option.
Thank you in advance for time and help!
Scott

Frank Scallo Jr wrote:
The thing is guys - Once a file is sized down it WILL lose sharpening - what we are doing is sharpening the full size RAW file or rather what the full size output would be like. Once we export a version sized down it will lose some of the 'bite'. LR has sharpening options on 'output' which is not only smart but a necessity. Adobe realizes that output for screen needs another sharpen. Apple either doesn't know or didn't bother. It makes ANY output for screen less than best.
Bear in mind that there seem to be two separate issues going on here - sharpening adjustments not being applied on export, and resizing.
As far as resizing is concerned, Aperture appears to use something roughly equivalent to Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper setting. Because of this I've never had much problem with Aperture's exports when used for the web, but obviously everyone's taste for sharpening differs which is why an option for output sharpening would be good.
Sharpening adjustments not being applied on export is a separate issue and should be reported via the feedback form ASAP by everyone who is experiencing the bug.
Now printing is another animal - I wouldn't print directly from RAW in aperture either if I'm printing small. Again, LR beats Aperture here as well since they include output sharpening for print.
Aperture has had output sharpening for printing since 2.0 came out (unless it in was 1.5). In A3 you need to turn on 'More Options' and scroll down, I can't remember where it is in A2. I don't know how effective it is as I print via a lab, but it's there and it's been there for a long time...
Ian

Capture vs. Content Sharpening in Lightroom and ACR

Hi,
I have a question regarding sharpening in Lightroom and ACR. In the information I have read, many authors point out that Lightroom and ACR's detail panel is optimized to provide control over capture sharpening. In a post that I read recently by Jeff Schewe, he clarified that and said that we are really sharpening for both capture and content with the detail panel in Lightroom.
That is confusing to me because after reading Bruce Fraser's book on sharpening, capture and content sharpening were treated as two different processes. If I understood correctly capture sharpening for digital captures was based on the characteristics of the camera and the file size of the image, with larger megapixel files receiving a smaller radius. In addition, I read that the radius in content sharpening is dictated by the dominant characteristics of the subject matter being sharpened, with high frequency subject matter receiving a smaller radius and low frequency receiving a higher radius.
The reason I am confused is that it appears that capture and content sharpening for the same digital capture can at times be quite different. For example, I believe that the book suggests a radius for an 11 megapixel capture of .4. If the image content calls for a sharpening radius of 1.3, what do I do? In Lightroom/ACR I can only choose 1 radius.
In all the reading I have done regarding the proper use of Lightroom and ACR, it suggest that you should use a radius that is suited to the image content. So it appears that we are that we are being encouraged to perform content sharpening only with Lightroom and ACR. What happened to the "capture" sharpening portion of the process?
Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
Sharpening for both capture and content in one pass would seem to conflict with some of the basic concepts elaborated on in Bruce Fraser's book. I am assuming that since Lightroom is using Photokit Sharpener routines, that they have accounted for the capture portion of the sharpening, but I don't see that stated explicitly anywhere in anything that I have read. If they have, I say kudos to everyone involved as that would be great. I'm just looking for a clearer understanding of what's happening.
If anyone can shed some light on this topic I would be very appreciative.
Thanks,
John Arnold

>Since Lightroom and ACR are capable of recognizing the camera make and model as well as the file size, are they applying capture sharpening behind the scenes that is tailored to that specific camera and file. If not, then how are we achieving both capture and content sharpening in the same operation?
The answer is that the detail section crosses over into creative territory and is not strictly "capture sharpening," although that is what is mostly meant to do.
Following the ultimate logic of the "sharpening workflow" might make you conclude that Capture sharpening and output sharpening are purely scientific steps where you should not make ANY creative decision at all and that creative decisions are only to be made in the creative sharpening step. In the real world, there are creative decisions and decisions determined by the content matter that enter into the capture step too just like in the output step. You might like extra-crunchy prints for example, but somebody else might prefer softer prints making you approach the output sharpening with a creative intent. The sharpening workflow was probably (Jeff will know more about the history) more of an attempt to arrive at a more rational way of approaching the process and to provide a guideline. It is probably not meant to rigidly separate the workflow up in defined steps where in the 1st step you're not allowed to think or look at the image, in the second step you can go completely wild, and in the last step you have to close your eyes again. The goal was probably to make the photographer realize that the different steps have a different purpose. Not to make you turn off your creative genius or to treat the process like a black box.
My approach to this, inspired in some part by Jeff's many posts on this, is to make the image look good at 1:1 using the detail tool in Lightroom/ACR. This is inherently driven by content of course as you use visual feedback. If your image is large swaths of plain color separated by sharp transitions with little structure, you probably do not want a high setting on the detail slider as you might induce halos and you probably want to use some masking. Conversely, if you shoot brick architecture, a high detail value might look good. If you shot at high ISO, you might need a different approach again to not blow up noise. Also, portraits might need a different approach. After the 1:1 optimization, I sometimes selectively sharpen (or blur!) parts of the image (rare but can be effective - example would be people's eyes). Then for the output step I use appropriate output sharpening for the medium according to my taste. You see that this is not rigidly following the workflow, but still is in the spirit.

How do I non-destructively sharpen, re-size and save my images if I'm using both LR & CS6?

Hi guys {and gals}...
Ok... here is my dilemma. I am having an incredibly difficult time understanding the best way to sharpen, re-size and save my images for both posting on the web and giving them to clients. I completed my first paid photo shoot (yay!), but as I finished editing each image, I re-sized it and posted it on my FB photography page. I later learned from a fellow at my local print shop that this is a destructive and irreversible edit (not yay! ).
So... before I pull out every last strand of hair on my head, I REAALLLYYYY need to get a good grasp on how to do the following things so that I can establish a good workflow: 1. Sharpen my image well {w/ Smart Sharpen}. Does this have to be done on a flattened image... and isn't flattening irreversible? 2. Re-sizing my images for both web display and client work/printing. Is it true that once I set it to 72ppi for web display, that I lose a great deal of the detail and quality? Do I need to create a copy of the file and have 2 different image sizes?
I am self taught, learning off the cuff through tutorials and constant error... and I just want so badly to have a smooth and beneficial work flow in place.
Currently, my workflow is as follows... 1. Load images into LR and convert to DNG files 2. Quick initial edit & then send into PS CS6 3. Perform detailed/layered edit(s) 4. {I know I'm supposed to sharpen now, as the last step, but am afraid to permanently flatten my image in case I want to tweak the layers later..} 5. Save the file (unflattened) 6. Go back into LR and Export the file to the appropriate place on my hard drive
So... at this point, my image is still at 300ppi {not appropriate for web display}, unflattened {I'm told flattened images are ideal for client work and printing} and not as sharp as I want it to be {because I don't know when to apply Smart Sharpen filter}.
HELP!!!!!!!
Thanks in adavnce for "listening" to me ramble...
~ Devon

There are a lot smarter guys on this forum than I so will let them give you ideas on the sharpen workflow.
Is DNG the same as RAW in that all the edits are non-destructive? With RAW all the edits are put on a separate XMP file and believe with DNG the XMP file is written to the image. In this case would suggest you save the DNG then create a jpg to send to clients or on web. A jpg will not save layers so it is by its nature flattened.
Since you are new to this try this test to understand ppi. Click on Image/image size.
      Change Document size to inches.
      Now uncheck "unsample image" as if this is checked all the pixels will be modified to adjust to the new size. Unchecked no pixels will be changed.
      Now adjust the resolution from 72 to 300 ppi (pixels per inch). Note that the Image Size in pixels does not change, but the document size changes. This means resolution is unchanged.
      Now click "resample image" and change the resolution. Note how the image size changes and document size stays the same.
Bottom line quality of picture is the image size in pixels. THe larger the numbers the higher the quality.

A Print workflow question

I outsource my printing using the "Print to File" option in the Print Module. My workflow is straight forward: Import, Image Editing (using the Develop Module) and Printing (Print to File). I sharpen my images during the Image Editing phase using the Develop sharpening tool. I use a calibrated Monitor to makes sure that I am seeing a representative image on my screen. In the Print Module (under Print Job) I can select an option “Print Sharpening” (low, standard and high).
Question: Does does the “Print Sharpening” negate my sharpening settings in the Develop Module? If not, what is the difference between the two sharpening tools?

Panagon-1 wrote:
Question: Does does the “Print Sharpening” negate my sharpening settings in the Develop Module? If not, what is the difference between the two sharpening tools?
Print Sharpening (often also called output sharpening) work in combination with the capture sharpening you set in the Develop module. This constitutes 2/3 of the sharpening workflow concept by Bruce Fraser see: Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow
The aim of the capture sharpening in the Develop module is to regain the loss of apparent sharpness cause by the optical system and the sensor. The goal is to have the image "look good" at 1:1. If properly accomplished, the Print Sharpening combines with the capture sharpening to sharpen for the final output–which really can't be judged visually...
So, make it look good in Develop then add the Print Sharpening on top.

Output sharpening in InDesign

I don't find any image output sharpening options in InDesign CS5. Don't they exists or is there another workflow? In the past I was told to resize and sharpen images in Photoshop before I place them in InDesign. Unfortunatley this is a very cumbersome process, especially when the image size is not fixed in the design, but will depend on the amount of content. If you resize and crop the image in InDesign (where I also have the context around the picture) it is almost impossible to recreate the exact image in Photoshop. I would have expected that InDesign has an option to output sharpen the images, but I can't find any. I checked the help, the forum and googled. I might use the wrong keywords, but I didn't find any usefull information. Especially after a lot of sharpening workflow made it in to other programms like Lightroom, I would have expected to have such a basic funtion where it is especially needed. By coincident I found link optimizer (http://www.zevrix.com/linkoptimizer.php), which is just the perfect solution, but it seems to be available only for the MAC and not for Windows.
Does anybody has any proper and sufficient workflows?
Marcus

A few observations from an Adobe perspective ...
Sharpening is a technique applied to raster images to boost apparent sharpness. The fact is that the best way to “sharpen” a photographic image is to properly focus the camera's lens prior to shooting! The sharpening available in Photoshop and other raster image processing programs simply stated tries to boost apparent sharpness by artifically enhancing what looks like object “edges” in the image files.
Sharpening is image specific. Some images require no sharpening, many benefit from minor sharpening. And of the images that require any significant sharpening, that sharpening is often best applied selectively within the image such as to accentuate a person's face and/or fuzz out an overly busy and sharp background (effectively reducing depth of field). As you may know, Photoshop provides a number of methods of and options within such methods for image sharpening.
The actual sharpening process is in fact dependent on the resolution of the original raster image as well as the apparent resolution of the image when rendered either on screen or to plate or paper. That apparent resolution is the resolution after any image resampling (either downsampling or upsampling also known as image interpolation) performed by the on-screen renderer or the RIP (for printing). Such image resampling can either effectively erase or exaggerate the results of sharpening done earlier in the workflow. In the latter case, those exaggerated results appear as unexpected ridges and/or light lines in the output.
InDesign is primarily a layout program with significant support for entry and editing of text and vector objects. Support for raster images is primarily for placement within the document, sizing (including magnification and cropping), rotation, and participation in some special effects available also to text and vector object, in other words operations on raster images associated with the use of such raster images in the context of the publication being produced in InDesign.
We get enough complaints about the complexity of InDesign as is. Trying to integrate a full Phoshop-like image editor into InDesign would be way over the edge. Furthermore, in most publication workflows, raster images and similar artwork are typically not embedded in any publication file itself, but referenced by links by all publications that use such raster images and artwork.
Ideally, Photoshop would be used for specifying qualitatively what within an image is to be sharpened, to what degree, and possibly with what method and allow some preview of what the results of that specified sharpening would look like when rendered at a particular magnification. Such sharpening parameters would accompany the image as metadata through InDesign to the exported PDF file and would only be acted upon (i.e., the actual sharpening of the raster bitmap based upon the sharpening parameters) by the renderer or RIP when either the PDF file is viewed at a particular magnification or printed at a particular resolution.
The problem is that the ideal sharpening workflow is not currently implemented by anyone. It makes little sense to try to hack something onto PDF export capability of InDesign to do sharpening when in fact the target display magnifications and/or printing resolution is not yet definitively known. Furthermore, since such sharpening parameters would likely differ from image to image per (2) above, doing a global sharpening of all images with a single set of parameters makes no sense at all.
This subject is very interesting and complex. The OP, FastFeet, does bring up some important points. Unfortunately, a reasonable solution requires “fixes” and new features in the image editing and the rendering aspects of the workflow, not in InDesign, the layout vehicle.
- Dov

Why does LR Develop Sharpening halo more than Photoshop's "Sharpen?"

Check out these two images:
Started in LR
Develop module
Sharpen = 100
View at 1:1
Took a screen shot:
http://www.reesweb.com/samples/sharpen/LR-Sharpening-100.jpg
Started in LR
Develop module
Sharpen = 0
Sent to edit in CS2/Photoshop
Applied Sharpen More
Applied Sharpen (second application was to reach about the same level of sharpness as LR's Sharpen = 100 for an equal comparison)
View at 100%
Took a screen shot:
http://www.reesweb.com/samples/sharpen/PS-ShMore-Sh.jpg
Why does LR's develop sharpen have so much more haloing? Seems like it should be at least as good as Photoshop's basic sharpen algorithms, right? Sure, LR doesn't have USM and maybe there's an argument (a marketing argument, that is) for keeping some high-end tools in PS, but the basic sharpening that is so important for RAW images should rock in LR. Am I missing something here?
For now I'm doing the PS round trip that many of us are doing just to apply the basic sharpening that RAW images need. A round trip would be OK for the occasional need of something more sophisticated in PS, but a round trip for every image is ridiculous.
/Still really dig LR!

Try this article by Bruce Fraser:
Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow.
In it he outlines the concepts of a "sharpening workflow" where "capture sharpening" is done only to restore the loss of sharpness caused by digital capture (or scanning), "creative sharpening" to do image specific sharpening (or smoothing) and then "output sharpening" only at the final stage _AFTER_ you got the image in it's final size and resolution.
You can also delve deeper into the mysteries of sharpening in his book
Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2
The bottom line is that there really is no such thing as a "single sharpening" routine that will be correct for each image or output type. Thus the "sharpening workflow".
And the other big problem is the fact you can _NOT_ use a computer display to accurately sharpen images for output...a display is simply way too low a resolution device. You need to actually test the sharpening on the actual output and media you are using...
Sorry...wish this stuff was simpler/easier, but it's not :~(

LR/ACR Sharpenning

At a recent educators conference there was a bit of a disagreement over sharpening in LR or ACR (assuming a primarily RAW workflow). The presenters stance was don't use it, jump out into PS and do your sharpening there. I took the other stance, but thought I'd see what others more knowledgeable thought.
Their concerns seem to center around three topics.
1) They believe the sharpening algorithms in LR/ACR are designed for capture sharpening and not primary sharpening. I could see this thinking for ACR - which started life as a front end for PS - but LR is a stand alone. In any event they should be the same algorithms.
2) They believe that sharpening in LR or ACR would constitute a violation of the "thou shalt sharpen last" commandment. My understanding is that since we are still within the less destructive RAW area, this should not be a problem.
3) They don't like/understand the vagaries of LR's Print Sharpening Settings What do Low, Medium, High, Glossy and Matt mean in reality?
What say you more knowledgeable people?

>At a recent educators conference there was a bit of a disagreement over sharpening in LR or ACR
It never ceases to amaze me that EDUCATORS are not better educated, ya know?
Since CR 4.1 and LR 1.1, the capture sharpening was substantially improved (IMHO to be best of breed) to the point that one would be foolish to eschew CR/LR over doing so in Photoshop. And now, in Lightroom 2.0 (not Camera Raw) we have the ability to do really good (IMHO) output sharpening (which does indeed come relatively last), so one wonders what these so called "educators" are talking about?
Yes, sharpening "for effect" is still a really useful function for Photoshopwhen you need it. The "creative sharpening" part of the Sharpening Workflow as espoused by the late Bruce Fraser can only lightly be done in Lightroom 2. The local brush for sharpening and un-sharpening (Hamburg claims un-sharpen isn't really a blur) is very limited when sharpening for effect.
It should be noted that Bruce and I both had a bit to do with the sharpening in CR/LR so you may want to take what I say with a grain of salt (don't make me wrong though :~)

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

Fraser/Schewe RWCR Book - Sharpening Question

Real World ACR > Great book, good explanations. Compiling questions as I read and re-read. Need sharpening workflow guidance. Let's say I am working on an NEF file that ultimately I want to upsample or crop/upsample in Photoshop. Should I sharpen both in the ACR image detail adjustment phase and then do an USM in photoshop again when I am ready to save my final edit? What effect does upsampling in Photoshop have on image adjustments done in ACR?
MacBook Pro, OS 10.4.11, Nikon D300 NEFs, ACR 4.3, PS-CS3

>Pretty sure sharpening is done before the down sample in Camera Raw in the pipeline and the down sample is a Lanczos algorithm (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanczos_algorithm for geek explanation) which has a "degree" of sharpening in it.
Jeff,
Your Wikipedia link is indeed very geeky--It talks about recovering
Eigenvalues, but doesn't even mention resampling. Perhaps this link is more appropriate
Lanczos Resampling.
I have no idea whether ACR sharpens before or after resampling, but to sharpen before resampling seems counterintuitive, since it is often advised to sharpen after resampling to offset the loss of sharpness occasioned by the resampling. With significant downsampling the sharpening halos would be resampled out of existence. Perhaps the Lanczos algorithm obviates these concerns.

Sharpening,sharpening

I have seen a new plugin called Mogrify that allows, among other things, sharpen the image either in a "direct" way or using an unsharp mask. As far as I understand, I would have now three options for sharpening my images (tiff files from scanned negatives or slides): i) sharpening inside the Develop module; ii) exporting and using the unsharp mask in PS and returning to LR; iii) exporting using the mogrify plugin. I wonder which are the differences between them and which would give better results when the image is eventually exported as jpg for printing in a custom lab (not to printers). Are they exclusive? If one use the sharpening in the Develop module the use of any other would produce bad results?. As a starter in the field of digital photography I do not see the differences clearly. Thanks in advance!
Agustin

The sharpening present in Lightroom is there to supply "capture sharpening." It is only there to take care of unsharpness caused by the demosaic of the RAW and lens/diffraction blur and should be used in a very mild fashion. What mogrify supplies is basically an Output sharpening that can take care of rescaling the image and the properties of the final output such as a photographic print or a monitor. Lightroom does not supply any output sharpening but for the very basic sharpening in the print module. Also, Lightroom's scaling algorithm tends to sharpen the image slightly, so often separate sharpening is not needed. So they serve very different purposes. Read on the ideas behind the basic sharpening workflow
here.
The author also wrote a book on this that you can find at amazon and other places.

ACR 4.1/ LR 1.1 sharpening

Jack Nack's blog last night mentioned ACR 4.1. For those wondering what sharpening controls will be in LR 1.1, here is a screen shot he posted of the relevant screens in ACR 4.1:
http://www.jnack.com/adobe/photoshop/acr41.jpg
Short version: there are amount, detail, radius, and masking sliders. And of course, the "clarity" control is there.
Noise reduction controls are still limited to luminance and color; hopefully their functionality is improved.
Full blog entry is here:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/05/camera_raw_41_a.html

Capture Sharpening is the process of regaining the apparent sharpness lost in the process of digitizing an image. The sharpening is applied globally-with the exception of doing edge masking, etc to tune the sharpening. But the sharpening is being applied to the entire area of the image.
Creative Sharpening, or sharpening for effect is generally applied locally only to those areas that need different or more or less sharpening. Since Camera Raw/Lightroom doesn't yet have any local controls-ie brush based adjustments, you really can't and shouldn't try to sharpen for effect in CR/LR. That will come in the future, we hope.
Also, the final stage of sharpening required is Output Sharpening...this is an resolution specific sharpening applied only after the image is sized to the final reproduction and applied based upon aspects such as printer type and paper type. Currently, Lightroom's Output Sharpening is somewhat (or really) limited. That will change in the future as well.
All of this comes form Bruce Fraser's Sharpening Workflow concept that he wrote about in this article:
Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow . I'll also add that Bruce was actually working with Mark Hamburg and Thomas Knoll on the sharpening part in Camera Raw 4.1 and the upcoming Lightroom 1.1. Bruce didn't get to see the final results (I had to step in and fulfill his contract) but Bruce's finger prints are all over the result...
To see more of Bruce's thoughts, check out his Real World Imaging Sharpening book that was released last fall. Bruce thought it was his more important work to date-more important than all the work he did in color management.

LR Sharpening Workflow

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for