Output sharpening

Does Aperture 2 support output sharpening for version exports or for prints only?
Thank you

I know that sharpening should best be done after resizing. But frankly I never bothered. I have no intention of re-evaluating every image by deciding how much sharpening I want to apply after creating a version in another another size of it.
And for contrast, I very much doubt your argument. When I watch an image in portrait orientation on my 15" MBP in full-screen view it is 900 px high, I might export it for the web 800 px high. To display it at 900 px high, it has been rescaled to 900 x 600 px. I do my contrast evaluation and adjustment on that rescaled image. Why would I bother to evaluate this judgement again for a 800 x 533 px??? Dito for the sharpening.
Well, and if I were to rely on any automatic sharpening algorithms and contrast routines to optimize an image, I would not spent at least 10 mins on every image in Aperture.
Again, I agree, ideally one would apply only little sharpening in a raw converter, convert the image into the final size and apply sharpening there. But again once more, if eyeballing an image at 900 x 600 px in Aperture is not good enough a measure for an intended 800 x 533 px image, then I am sorry, but I don't care.

Similar Messages

  • Sharpener Pro 3 has problems in Aperture as the Pre sharpener continually asks one to buy or activate and the Output Sharpener causes Aperture to hang. Have removed all duplicate fonts and tried using a new user account. Any ideas?

    I am experiencing problems with Sharpener Pro 3 as an Aperture 3 plug-in. These are:  the Pre sharpener continually asks one to buy or activate and the Output Sharpener causes Aperture to hang. Following discussions with Nik Software I have removed all duplicate fonts and tried using a new user account. Neither of the courses of action worked. Have other users experienced these difficulties? Can you suggest an alternative remedy?

    I am experiencing problems with Sharpener Pro 3 as an Aperture 3 plug-in. These are:  the Pre sharpener continually asks one to buy or activate and the Output Sharpener causes Aperture to hang. Following discussions with Nik Software I have removed all duplicate fonts and tried using a new user account. Neither of the courses of action worked. Have other users experienced these difficulties? Can you suggest an alternative remedy?

  • Output sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Photoshop CS5

    Output sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Photoshop CS5
    I want to do two-pass sharpening - capture and output - with output capture done just before I print. I do the initial (capture) sharpening in the ACR Detail/Sharpening panel, with Amount slider set to, for example, 100.  Then, I open the image to PS CS5 as a Smart Object, and use layers and masks for further editting.
    My question is, can I go back to ACR for the final (output) sharpening pass?  When I re-open the file in ACR, the Sharpening Amount slider is back to zero, but the other three sliders are still at the settings I used at the start of the process, i.e., the capture sharpening.  If I again set the Amount slider to a positive value, then again open the image in PS for printing, will my second pass through the ACR Sharpening panel take effect - will it accumulate on top of the initial sharpening?
    By the way, the reason I want do output sharpening in ACR rather than, say, PS Unsharp Mask, is so I can use the Masking slider in ACR, which is much easier than the comparable techniques available in PS.  I am aware that some say you should not do any masking for the output sharpening. I'd like to though.
    Thanks for ideas.

    This is pretty much the way I do it, and I also always found ACR sharpening superior to anything in Photoshop. There is the "sharpen for output" in ACR, but you have little control over it.
    The tricky part is feeding the file through ACR a second time. I don't think re-opening the Smart Object will do anything more than you could have done the first time. I do it with a rendered TIFF, and have an intricate set of actions that I run in the Image Processor Pro. It's a mess, and you don't want to know.
    The frustrating part is how to action ACR. I just can't figure it out. It'll work, and then I have to change some setting and the action stops working. I suspect you need a script, but so far I haven't found any.
    So I've come to a compromise: I first process to TIFF in a temp folder, then I bulk open them in ACR to sharpen, then a second process to finish up.
    For less critical files I have a sharpening action that comes close, involving edge masks and blend ifs, using smart sharpen which tends to preserve edges better than unsharp mask, and with less accumulation of noise.
    Bottom line: I'm also very interested in further comments to this. BTW, I recently bought Lightroom 4, so maybe there is a posibility using that in a mixed workflow.

  • 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

  • Output sharpening on export

    I wonder if there is a way to specify an amount of sharpening that shall be applied to an exported image that is going to be scaled down e.g. for web presentation. My preferred solution would be to include this into an export preset.
    I have used this "output sharpening" feature (also known as "web sharpening") within the export preset e.g. in Bibble Pro 5 (yes, another RAW converting software) and it really helps avoiding loss of sharpness as a result of scaling down images. I agree that this is not necessarily needed for each and every image but there are quiet some cases when output sharpening gives them some punch.
    As a newbie to Aperture this is what I have learned so far:
    Aperture provides various tools to adjust sharpening of images, starting with the sharpening adjustment applied to RAW files (RAW fine tuning) continued by "Sharpen", "Edge Sharpen" up to the possibility to "brush in" sharpening to certain parts of an image.
    Apple was so kind as to provide a nice introductory movie clip to illustrate the basic usage of edge sharpening
    All these adjustments are applied to the image in its original size of course. As soon as I export images and downsize them (using an appropriate preset) I do not seem to have any influence on how post-processing continues (re: sharpening). I have to rely on how Aperture handles this internally (right?). Surprisingly, this is different when it comes to printing. If the output is print the user may adjust the amount of "output sharpening".
    As far as I have seen I am not the first and only one who faces this issue. A more elaborate article on output sharpening with sample images in context with Aperture is given e.g. here.
    Another interesting review on "Sharpening with Aperture 3" can be found here.
    Of course I have also searched the forums for a suitable solution. As far as I can see a satisfactory solution has not been outlined so far:
    Sharpening upon jpeg export
    Sharpening export workflow question
    Output sharpening
    Sharpening during exporting process
    Maybe there are some news or workarounds in the meantime. I'd appreciate your proposals and look forward sharing your experience on this issue.

    Kirby, I thank you for your kind answer. It is very much appreciated!
    After reading one of the articles quoted in my original post I thought that the "BorderFX solution" for output sharpening on export would no longer work. But it obviously does as you report.
    In the meantime I have had a look at the BorderFX website. Many features for a plugin - more than I usually need - but an interesting project anyway!
    As you supposed I am not that keen on using a plugin for just the sharpening of images going to the web. But it's at least a workaround which I think is worth while a try.
    So let's have a try!
    For anyone having a similar problem I attach two sample images which I exported
    a) with the built-in export feature of Aperture (3.2)
    b) with BorderFX (1.5.3) and the settings you recommended
    Please be sure to click on the respective images as the previews look horrible to me at first sight!
    a) Aperture Export (resize to 600 px height)
    b) BorderFX export (resize to 600 px height, Edge Sharpen: Intensity: 0.5, Radius 1.00)
    The image size allowed to upload here is quit limited, but I think the difference can be noticed. Maybe the sharpening in b) is already overdone but the comparison shall only serve as a first shot.
    If somebody from the Apple Aperture team comes across this thread:
    Maybe we can have a "sharpen on export setting" right within Aperture one day?
    This is what e.g. Bibble offers in this respect:
    In this case post processing is similar to an unsharpen mask filter setting.
    I edited my message after I have seen the artifacts appearing in the preview images.

  • Output Sharpening for Blurb?

    Thinking I'll try the Blurb book service. No problem capture sharpening in Lr. But what to do about output sharpening? Is there a way to take advantage of the output options in the Print module and move output sharpened images to a desktop folder? Or must I run everything through Photoshop?

    Yes, John. I didn't see any difference except for the preview window in the Detail panel of Develop. Is that not still just capture sharpening? I assumed output for printed pages would still be available only in Print mode, or in Photoshop.
    If anyone has tried outputting for book-making software, I'd appreciate hearing about your experience. Best-practice sharpening for these seems a little murky to me. I'm wading through Blurb FAQs and forums, but guess I'll probably need to make a test book to see what happens. Mainly, I wanted to try something other than an Apple book to avoid having to run everything through iPhoto or, heaven forfend, buy Aperture.

  • Default HTML Gallery: How to make Slider for 'thumb.width' & apply output sharpening on thumbnails

    Hi,
    I am in the process of teaching myself the LRWebengine by modifing the file 'galleryInfo.lrweb' which is default HTML Gallery.
    I am intensively reading and using SDK 3.0.
    Not sure whether I am asking in the right forum but give it a try anyway.
    What I'd like to achive is to have a slider allowing to change the width of the thumbnails in the section for Grid Pages and later to apply output sharpening on thumbnails.
    Currently the size for the thumbnails width & height is set to 130px (["photoSizes.thumb.height"] = 130)
    There is no problem to change the size for all thumbnails manually by changing this and its associated values at lines 96, 110, 114, 134, 138 in galleryInfo.lrweb.
    What I'd like to find out is the following:
    - how to properly include a slider row in the section for 'Grid pages' (presumably right after line 358)
    - how to create a variable (eg. $sliderThumbWidth) from the selected slider-value
    - so that this variable can be used to replace the current preset values at lines (96, 110, 114, 134, 138)
    - later and in addition, apply sharpening 'high' (level=3) on output for thumbnails
    First I thought I'd be able to figure it out by myself, but after two days of fiddling it seems that I can't. I am stuck with the creation of the variable '$sliderThumbWidth' and assume that the new 'slider_row' is not coded properly.
    Hope someone can give me hints and will help me out on this.
    Thanks for your attention.

    ... have a slider allowing to change the width of the thumbnails in the section for Grid Pages ...
    Got this one worked out alright. Yeah, thumbs can now be dynamically adjusted in the WEB-UI.
    Remains the problem to find out how to apply output sharpening on thumbnails.
    Has someone ideas how to achieve this?
    Thanks for replies.
    Message was edited by: snahphoto

  • Web Module Output Sharpening question

    Is the web gallery output sharpening in LR2 only available when a web gallery template makes it available? I can't seem to find it under Output Settings for most of my installed gallery templates? I'm guessing that the developer has to make this available and/or the template has to be LR2 aware. Not sure though. Of course, it would be very convenient to make web gallery output sharpening available for any template installed.

    I have to follow a somewhat convoluted workflow when doing my photobooks. But in a nutshell.
    Import Raw Image from EOS 30D
    Apply color correction and capture sharpening (I sharpen until it looks good onscreen)
    Export images at their largest size to my Links folder for InDesign. (I design all of the photo book in InDesign.)
    Once I know all the sizes for sure in InDesign, I run a script that takes each image into photoshop and sizes the images to 100% and imports them back into InDesign.
    I take the sized down images back into LR2 and output sharpen them and update them in InDesign.
    I know it's not the greatest workflow, but it seems the the easiest and quickest. I wish there was some way for InDesign and LR to communicate the correct image sizes. But I haven't discovered anything like that yet.

  • Specify output sharpening

    Hi everyone,
    i have a litte big-problem,
    when i export my Photos to 800x800 *.JPG, then they will nerver get really sharp.
    What can i do to get sharper ones?
    Have anybody else these Problems?
    I don't want to export them in Photoshop, sharpen there and then Import them back into LR, this schould be not the way it works!?
    greetings Annika
    P.S. the help woun't help..
    [quote: Help-Site]
    *You can choose to apply an adaptive output sharpening algorithm to your photos when you export them. The amount of sharpening that Lightroom applies is based on the output media and output resolution you specify. Output sharpening is performed in addition to any sharpening you apply in the Develop module.
    If you choose JPEG, PSD, or TIFF as your file format, select the Sharpen For box in the Output Sharpening area of the Export dialog box.
    Specify whether you are exporting for Screen, Matte Paper, or Glossy Paper output.
    (Optional) Change the Amount pop-up menu to Low or High to decrease or increase the amount of sharpening applied. In most cases, you can leave the Amount set to the default option, Standard. *[/quote: Help-Site]

    In case you've not already done so, you'll need to make sure your image is first properly capture-sharpened. In particular,
    make sure you've applied a sufficient amount of sharpening in Develop's Detail panel. You'll need to be viewing the image at 1:1 (i.e., 100%) or higher to preview the capture sharpening. Once images look crisp (but not oversharpened) in that view, then they should also look crisp when exported and downsampled using the Standard/Screen output sharpening.

  • Output Sharpening for Screen Still Not Sharpening?

    There's obvious sharpening differences for matte and glossy, high and low, but when I export JPG for screen, using Lightroom 2.4, PS2 shows no difference between the two layers using difference blend mode.
    John Gregson

    I just tested it and it appears to work normally now although the difference is still a little too subtle for my taste. You should use Apply Image in Photoshop and set it to substract to really see it. Then you use a levels adjustment layer to see the differences. I see a very clear difference in sharpening. In 2.3 there used to be no difference whatsoever between standard and high. Below is the result for substracting a high output sharpened image (screen) minus a standard output sharpening followed by a levels operation at 100 and 149. Clearly the high sharpening sharpens more than the standard.

  • No difference between High and Normal output sharpening

    I was going to post a topic about how small is difference between screen output sharpening settings, when some tests revealed that in fact the difference is nil.
    b Can anyone see any difference between Normal and High screen sharpening in applied at export?
    I even stacked the two versions in Photoshop with the Difference blending mode on and a Levels adjustment layer amplifying the difference, and even the histogram was showing that I'be got big plain black rectangle.
    Sharpening for paper seems to work fine.
    Lightroom 2.3 Windows.

    Just took the time to test this on my 'calibration' image and there is indeed no difference in Standard and High sharpening for screen.
    Same result with and without resizing image; with and without jpeg compression; with both tif and jpeg files.
    Lr 2.3 on XP.

  • Sharpening for web gallery output?

    I'm just wondering what you all do to sharpen your images for output to web galleries, since LR doesn't offer this as a possibility.
    I guess one way would be to open the images from the gallery folder and do a batch process in Photoshop. But I'm curious to know if there's a simpler or more efficient way to go about it.

    [email protected] schrieb:
    > I also often post images larger than 800x800 that need a bit more
    > sharpening. Herb, would you be willing to share a bit more about
    > droplets and how you integrate them with your LR workflow?
    In PS, using "Droplets" one can generate operating system level
    executables. They provide a mean to hand image files over to "actions"
    (macros) recorded in PS.
    In order to create an "export action" for LR, one would roughly do the
    following:
    - In PS, record an action which does the following:
    * Apply USM with suitable parameters (like radius 0.9, amount 30,
    treshold 3) to an image already opened in PS.
    * Save for web/save as JPEG (target folder will be hardcoded and thus
    fixed).
    * Close image without saving changes.
    - In PS, select File / Automate / Droplet and create a new droplet
    * Choose an executable file name
    * select the previously recorded action
    * choose target: none (Since we already saved files to JPEG)
    - Put the generated executable or a shortcut/link to it into LR's
    "export action" folder.
    For export with output sharpen, in LR:
    - File / Export
    - Choose some target folder (will be fixed; for temporary image files)
    - file format: PSD or TIFF
    - color space: sRGB (for web export)
    - maximum size: target size as needed, e.G. 1280x1024 for SXGA files
    - export action: select the previously created droplet
    Save these settings as a new export preset (like "SXGA").
    From now on, one would just need to export using that preset. LR would
    render already resized PSD files, start PS, batch sharpen them and save
    JPEG files to the directory chosen while recording the PS action.
    Herb

  • 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.

  • Workflow using LR & PS together for sharpening

    I use LR 3.3 as my default image organizer and processor. But sometimes I  want to go into PS to use the tools there (I use CS4). Let's say I want to make a  high quality JPG from a RAW file that resides within the LR catalog.  I've started with some LR adjustments, but I also want to make some PS  tweaks. What is the best workflow?
    I'm aware of the three step procedure of capture sharpen, selective  sharpen and output sharpen when processing RAW exclusively in Photoshop.  When I import card images into LR, I usually add a small amount of sharpening  automatically (amount=25). Does this qualify as the capture sharpen if I  use the "Edit with LR Adjustments" in the external editing dialog when  using PS from within LR? Or does the creation of the TIF file negate  that original sharpening and must I start from scratch in PS? When  changes are saved back to LR, do I stop at selective sharpen in PS and  use an output sharpen when I export the TIF to JPG in LR? Or do the  output sharpen in PS and use none in LR export? I think no on the  latter, because if I am correct, I will need some kind of sharpening any  time I convert or resize a file.
    Or for those special pix, am I better off to just grab the original RAW  with PS, convert with ACR, and process 100% in PS and convert to JPG  from there (manually adding to LR catalog afterwards)?

    I would love to see a sharpening improvement in Lightroom that allows the local pins to have different settings than the globals. In case you did not know - presently all locals share the same settings with the globals. I also acknowlege this would be more complex to implement, and slower.
    Anyway, I sometimes export a photo back to Lightroom, sharpen some more with different settings, then export again to Lightroom, sharpen some more (locally) with different settings... - this technique is effective for lens sharpness fall-off correction, since a higher radius and lower detail is more appropriate toward the edges. It does not take directional stretching into account like DxO's algorithm supposedly does, but DxO is not a panacea either - I can usually get as good or better results using this technique in Lightroom than with DxO's auto sharpness fall-off correction.
    But back to your original question... - I concur with Pete: save output sharpening for final output, but if you are going to go outside for sharpening and/or other things, it does beg the question of whether to do it in Lightroom first, also external, then again in Lightroom..., or just outside..., or just in Lightroom...
    And, I dont have an answer, but I do find the question fascinating. Personally, I've experimented a fair amount with this when using tools like Focus Magic, or Nx2 sharpening, or Topaz Detail enhancement... - how much to do where... how much to do before and how much to do after... (and how does NR fit in...)
    Sorry I cant be more helpful, but my general conclusion has been:
    It really depends on which software, what you are trying to do, how the various algorithms complement each other... - And I got a bit overwhelmed before figuring out the particulars...
    What I will say however, is that most sharpeners work best when used in moderation, so one approach is: do a little at each stage. In other words, do some moderate sharpening in Lr before taking it into Ps, then do some there too - but go easy, then maybe even a little more when you get it back to Lr... - This approach is not necessarily optimal for each case, but seems to be generally good...
    Rob

  • Photo Books and Sharpening

    I'm unsure about how to approach sharpening of individual photos for my photo books. Here's the workflow I follow to print books at Shared Ink:
    Import RAW images into Lightroom 2.
    Color Correct/Sharpen images within the Develop Module
    Export RAW images as Tiffs at max res and import into an InDesign template created by me. Inside of InDesign I resize photos to the desired size.
    Create a PDF of the book and then convert PDFs to JPGS to be uploaded to Shared Ink. (They only accept JPGS from a program like InDesign.)
    Here are my questions:
    In step 3, when I export RAW images as Tiffs to place into InDesgin, what sort of Export Sharpening should I be using? LR has matte and Glossy, and then 3 strengths of sharpening. I generally print on matte paper so I know I could use matte.
    When I finally decide on the size of my images within InDesign, do I need to re-export each image from Lightroom at the correct size? I normally include 100s of images in my books and it would take quite a while to do this.
    Thanks, any advice is much appreciated!

    kpdesigns492 wrote:
    When I export from LR2 and apply sharpening, do you recommend exporting at the full size and then sizing down in InDesign? Or would you recommend saving each image at the correct size from LR2 at the outset?
    For the test, I would do a page or two each way.  I think you will find that you can't tell a material difference and thus you can quit thinking about how time consuming it would be (and it would be horrendous in my opinion).  So maybe your test is on 12x12 pages with a background image and three small images on top, one greater than original, one at original and one smaller than original.  Then make a separate page for the following samples:
    1.     Export the 4 images from LR with no output sharpening at original size.
    2.     Export the 4 images from LR with Matt, Standard output sharpening at original  size.
    3.     Export the 4 images from LR with Matt, Low output  sharpening at original  size.
    4.     Export the 4 images from LR with no output sharpening at approximately the sizes for the sample page (then use them at exactly the exported size).
    5.     Export the 4 images from LR with Matt,  Standard output sharpening at approximately the sizes for the sample page (then use them at exactly  the exported size).
    6.     Export the 4 images from LR with Matt, Low output  sharpening at approximately the sizes for the sample page (then use them at exactly  the exported size).
    This should give you a good idea as to whether output sharpening has a material impact on books printed from SharedInk.  It may not be a good test for other printing but that's OK.  The idea is to find out what is best for this particular book process for YOU.
    Keep me posted.
    Jeff

Maybe you are looking for