Sharpening

I have read that Lightroom sharpening is only effective for capture sharpening.
In regard to output for the web, what is gained by using Photoshop for output sharpening over using additional sharpening in Lightroom before using the Lightroom Web Module?
As I gain experience with image adjustment, I am able to see things that were once simply invisible to me. At this point I find it difficult to see the difference between sharpening in LR and PS. What should I be looking for?
Thank you.

In regard to workflow, in order to use the Lightroom Web Module and properly sharpen images to size it would be necessary to use Photoshop to sharpen the thumbnails and large images contained in the folder that the Web Module creates. Is this a good approach?

Similar Messages

Sharpening in Aperture 1.5.6

I'm using Aperture 1.5.6 on OSX 10.4.11
My camera is a canon 40d.
When I import RAW images from the memory card I've noticed that if i open the adjustments HUD and look at the Edge sharpening intensity slider, it's already at around 0.8
I'm used to opening my files, after any adjustments in Aperture, in Photoshop CS3 via the "open with external editor" command and performing Unsharp Mask on them. Should I slide the Edge Sharpen Intensity slider to 0 if I'm intending to sharpen with an external editor?
I'm not as familiar with the sharpening in Aperture as I am with the unsharp mask filter in PS.
It would be nice if I could get the same quality of sharpening in Aperture as I achieve in PS as that's all I'm using PS for in most cases.
Can anyone advise on how I can get similar results in Aperture or whether I should continue to sharpen in PS.
Thanks.

gah hey im having this problem too
and it all worked last week <?>
formatted flash drive on camera.
downloaded photos from a file reader via flash drive.
camera = canon mk3ds eos
can see previews in apeture (2.1.2) but large image on browser is unsupported.
error message "unsupported image format".
have tried downloading them again and importing them again etc.
both straight into apeture and via hard drive folder.
but it worked last week?
bit upset i love aperture and my new camera now nothing is working well
for info i loaded up canon photo professional which is canons own brand image processor (which is a bit rubbish imho) and the images worked on that.
they will not import to photoshop (an old version)

Smart Object sharpening in CR from PS via LR - not sticking

Ok, here is what I am attempting to do. I have 2 images in lightroom. They are the same subject (landscape) taken with 2 different exposures. Exposure 1 is for the foreground, which was in shadow. The second exposure is for the middle ground and the sky via a virtual copy for the mid ground and the sky separatly. I make tone adjustments in LR then export as a smart object to PS. So I now have 3 smart objects. I make masks for foreground, mid ground, and sky.
Now I want to go back to CR and make some final adjustments and sharpen each masked photo prior to copying all 3 layers to one file.
To begin with when importing the image as a smart layer from LR, CR does not open. The images get exported directly into PS. Now when I double click on the Smart Object icon it does open up into CR. I check to make sure the workflow option includes Open in PS as smart object. At this point I go through and make CR corrections including sharpening. I can see the changes and the sharpening on the screen but when I click OK, to put the image back in PS the changes do not show. I have tried making a snapshot of the corrections prior to clicking OK but the corrections still don't move.
Now I have to tell you that since I am learning the programs I have exported as smart objects from LR prior numerous times. The first time I did it with each image CR did open up and did save the changes. The problem is with the learning curve I have needed to go back and redo the image to get it right. But now I can't get the changes to take.
I am using PS V11.0.1.0, LR V2.6.0.2 and whatever CR is in there. I updated at the beginning of January. All on a fairly robust PC.
Thanks for the help.

Copied the cr2 files and re-did the whole process. This time it worked. Thanks anyways...

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?

How do I sharpen video from DSLR in Premiere Elements 11?

I've been using PE11 for some time now. Mostly for home videos and a youtube channel. Up until this point I have used a Canon Vixia HF M-50 which was great. I had to do very little adjusting the picture in post for what I needed. But I just recieved a Canon 7D with a couple good lenses and I will be selling the Vixia. I know the 7D has the capability to take much better video and I am getting better at the manual settings. Most tutorials out there say to have your settings with the sharpness and contrast turned all the way down and adjust in post. The sharpen "effect" doesn't really do much and my footage from the vixia looks much sharper. Any help out there for a newb? Or am I going to have to upgrade my computer and software to keep up with the new equipment?
Thanks for any help you can offer.

Hi Steve,
Thanks for getting back
I used a Samsung SMX-F40BP/XEU "Handycam" recording from the the image projected on to a screen. This produced mp4 video files on an SD Card, H.264/AVC Format with AAC Audio
I then dragged and dropped the raw video files on to the PC hard drive, and added the folder to the Adobe Organizer.
When creating the projects I
1) Create a a New Project PAL Standard DV 48KHz to match the 4:3 aspect ratio of the original film
2) Drag the video/clip I intend to work with from the organizer window in to the work are of Adobe Premiere Elements 11.
When I was originally doing this yesterday for the first 15 clips, when added to the timeline, the video clips appeared as 1 contiguous clip as in the first image i posted.
When i went to work today I noticed that when i dragged a clip from the organiser to the work area, the video took longer to appear on the timeline, I could see the progress as it was added, with lines appearing where scenes/splits are being automatically added as in the second image I posted.
I noticed first thing that the clips were appearing in the organiser window with different icons, and in some cases I could expand the clips to see all scenes that had apparently been generated automatically. All clips in the orgnaiser now appear with the same icon, and are all expandable.
If i now create a new project and use one of the original clips that originally appeared as 1 contiguous clip on the timeline, it is now split automatically, as with the later clips.

How can I sharpen all photos in a gallery at one time?

I want to sharpen all of my photos in a gallery at one time. How do I do this? In Lightroom, you can sync....can I do this on Aperture?

I don't disagree ... . I tested LR3, Ap3, and C1Pro5 for some large projects, and settled on Aperture because it's organization tools were a whole level deeper than LR's (at the time, C1P had none), and I prefered the interface. I'm no wiz at LR, but I suspect the two are pretty much dead even photo developing tools. I'm not at all tempted by LR, but I am drawn to C1P for photo developing. If I didn't have so much time invested in Aperture -- and so many Images under management -- I would look again at C1P now that it claims to be fully integrated with a DAM.
I think Aperture could be easily the best of the lot. Like you, however, I don't see Apple aiming for "best".
If you like Aperture and want to see it changed in any particular ways, send feedback. Apple may not respond the way you want -- but they certainly won't respond to things they don't hear.

Favorite Sharpening Methods?

Copied from the archive, with BUMP replies weeded out. ======================================================= Lindas Graphics - 04:29am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific Discussion on favorite sharpening methods in Photoshop. I normally use Unsharp Mask, Amount: 100 / Radius: .5 / Threshold: 0 -- followed by Fade with Luminosity Mode. Recently I've started experimenting with the Hi Pass Filter. There seems to be many different tutorials on sharpening, each one's method slightly different. I'd be interested in other user's favorite methods and why. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 05:52am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#1 of 68) At the pro level ... well then the answer must be "it depends". Regards, Victor Lee. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 07:32am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#2 of 68) This is a good starting point: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11242.html Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 07:41am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#3 of 68) Mathias, Thanks for that link. Another good article from Bruce. But I'm a little puzzled by "Figure 1a: Unsharpened" which to me is clearly sharpened already. Regards, Victor Lee. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 10:32am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#4 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 11:34am PST Mathias: I remember reading that tutorial in the past but forgot where it was. Bruce Fraser is one of my favorites when it comes to Photoshop. I've printed the tutorial along with the follow-up one he did. I'm glad you posted the link. Thanks! I'm interested in the methods you people use for sharpening. Does anyone else use the High Pass Filter? <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 11:30am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#5 of 68) Linda, Yes, I do. I use the overlay sharpening technique. Sometimes. It really depends on the subject. For web photos, I often use PS´ USM with a setting of 50, 0.3, and then re-apply it often four times. If you don´t know what the right radius setting should be, first, pull up the amount setting to max, then adjust the radius setting untill the right details are sharpened, then lower the amount to a reasonable setting - and then use 25% of this amount and re-apply four times. Works for me! See http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/actions/ for various techniques I´ve recorded, including the overlay sharpening technique. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 12:47pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#6 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 01:48pm PST I use a technique that has delivered reliable results for me, for what it's worth... I convert the image to lab mode, and make my adjustments on the the Lightness layer (a copy really) to avoid color shifts. I basically select the glowing edges, apply a gaussian blur filter, then basically, apply the Unsharp filter. When it's finished, I convert back to RGB mode. Its not original, it's a modification of an action found in PhotoScan Factory actions found in Xchange. But it produces VERY good results for me on MOST of the stuff I do. I hope this thread keeps going as sharpening is of huge iterest to me since my work requires the removal of moire patterns. [edit] By the way, i use the high pass filter followed by fade on the textual portions of my images (black text on a white background) that have been overblurred by the gaussian blurr filter. It produces some pretty nice results for me. Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:55pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#7 of 68) Now this is getting interesting. I appreciate the elaboration. I look forward to trying your techniques and variation. Thanks Mathias and Tony. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> glen deman - 07:45pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#8 of 68) You can also sharpen individual channels. Try sharpening (or unsharpening, I guess it is!) the "weakest" channel of the image, or the channel with the least detail. I've found that this will often be the red channel; when you do this, you sharpen the image but avoid some of the pitfalls of sharpening, like halos and artifacts. I think I saw this in Photoshop Artistry. Glen <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Danny Raphael - 09:34pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#9 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 10:37pm PST Here's a no cost edge sharpening action that's pretty nifty. Scroll down to the BOTTOM of this page at FredMiranda.com: http://www.fredmiranda.com/Action_profilesPage/index.html <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 10:57pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#10 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 11:58pm PST Danny, I would say LOW cost, not NO cost - he's charging $8.50 for the action. Personally, I'll pass. Thanks for the link though. Peace, Tony [Edit] DOH! I didn't scroll down far enough, there's a "lite" version offered for free below the one he charges for. My mistake, sorry. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mark Reynolds - 05:25am Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#11 of 68) Seems fairly pointless - I can almost tell you what the $8.50 will get; you: Make an edge mask first using the Find Edges filter on an alpha channel. This can then be blurred slightly and Levels adjusted. Duplicate the base layer and run unsharp mask to taste on the duplicate. Load the alpha channel into a layer mask on the Sharpened layer. This will sharpen the edges only - very useful for skin tones where you don't want any accentuation of noise and texture. The layer mask can also be adjusted (Blur and Levels again, and Maximum ) to enhance or spread the sharpening. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 06:09am Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#12 of 68) I´m one of those that believe that Freds actions, although valuable, are not worth the money. But I know that a lot of people are willing to pay. Actually, seeing Fred charging for his actions was a major motivator for me to develop the digital deluxe action set. - Which is free ofcourse. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Don Stefanik - 12:02pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#13 of 68) Edited: 24-Jul-2002 at 01:04pm PST And a great set of actions they are Mathias... I use them quite a bit. They are one of my favorites. Don <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 02:13pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#14 of 68) Thanks Don, Only the de-noise actions are my own invention, the rest are variations of known techniques, invented by others. I just recorded and published them. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Dean Holland - 04:43pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#15 of 68) An off-the-wall sharpening approach that I use very occasionally. Sometimes a subject (especially plain tones) can stand strong amounts of only the light or the dark part of the USM halo. You can separate them thus: Duplicate the layer and USM the copy (you can go slightly harder than normal). Duplicate the copy, and change the blend mode of one copy to lighten, and the other copy to darken. At 100% opacity for both copies, you have the normal effect of the USM, but by varying the opacity of these layers, you can separate the amount of lighter halo and darker halo the subject gets, allowing slightly more USM than normal without it looking too crunchy or noisy. I think I read this in Dan Margulis' Book Professional Guide to Color Correction, which has an excellent chapter on sharpening with heaps of other ideas. Warm regards, Dean [Posted from Australia] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 05:38pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#16 of 68) Very cool ideas people. I'm enjoying this and keeping notes for when I can stop long enough to experiment on different kinds of images. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 12:17pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#17 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 01:28pm PST I'm back and want to keep this thread alive. Re-reading your posts and think your ideas so far are interesting. The link Mathias provided also covers Noise. I think dealing with Noise goes right along with the topic of Sharpening. I welcome your comments on Noise as well. I personally try to deal with Noise channel by channel. As a rule the blue channel seems to have the most Noise. But what I find tricky is when the sharpest channel (usually green) ends up having the most Noise, which does happen sometimes. My method is to use the Median Filter on the Noisy Channel then Fade. If you do it channel by channel you cannot use Luminosity Mode though -- one advantange of correcting all the channels together. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 01:07pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#18 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 02:27pm PST Re Post #5: <<For web photos, I often use PS´ USM with a setting of 50, 0.3, and then re-apply it often four times. If you don´t know what the right radius setting should be, first, pull up the amount setting to max, then adjust the radius setting untill the right details are sharpened, then lower the amount to a reasonable setting - and then use 25% of this amount and re-apply four times. >> Mathias: On Web photos I'm curious why you do the sharpening in quarters instead of all at once. I assume that you do not use the Fade filter combined with Luminosity Mode. I am experimenting on a low res photo of an older person I recently took with my digital camera. I tried it both ways (all at once and in 4ths) but cannot seem to see any difference between the two methods. By the way, I'm not trying to find holes in your methods, on the contrary I think they are interesting and I'm enjoying the challenge. Oh yes, and another thing -- Your method of determining Radius is helpful. I tried that and came up with the same setting you did: .3 <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 01:44pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#19 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 02:46pm PST Okay Tony, it's your turn. ) I'm slowing making my way down the list. Re: Post #6 << I convert the image to lab mode, and make my adjustments on the the Lightness layer (a copy really) to avoid color shifts. I basically select the glowing edges, apply a gaussian blur filter, then basically, apply the Unsharp filter. When it's finished, I convert back to RGB mode. >> Question: When you select the glowing edges, does that mean you run the Glowing Edges Filter first and then select the highlights? If so, how do you determine what settings to use for the Glowing Edges Filter? And then how do you determine what settings you use for the Gaussian Blur Filter? Just curious. One more thing: I assume you use this Lightness Channel Copy just as a means of loading the edges for the final step of running unsharp mask on the original channel, followed by deletion of this channel copy. Is this correct? <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 02:47pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#20 of 68) Linda, I have also developed a noise action that basically medians the L+a+b channels manually, and applies a 'manual' edgemask. This action demands more selective mask editing, and more user input, but it is 'stepless' - usable on all ISO speeds. This action, which is just a classic median de-noiser with a twitch, is not published yet. The subject of noise is pretty big.. It is also interesting. Sharpen in four steps Try it on another image. You really need different sharping for each image. Examine at 200%. The edge halos in the stepped version is less pronounced. You can use this stepping method on all the classic filters and techniques for a better resampled pixel. I assume that you do not use the Fade filter combined with Luminosity Mode. I used to do that. Now I sharpen a merged layer and put this in Luminosity mode to avoid any color shifted pixels, and to keep everything neat and un-destructed. If I want, I apply an edgemask to this layer. There´s another method I use. This method is called <a href=http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/USM.HTM>Real Unsharp Mask</A> (I´ve got it actionized as well). It is very nice for certain subjects and contrast enhancements. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 02:55pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#21 of 68) Mathias, There was some mention of actions that you have for download. I'd like to try them. Where are they please? Regards, Victor Lee. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 03:30pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#22 of 68) Here: http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/actions/ (I think its listed in my profile.) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 03:40pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#23 of 68) Mathias: I tried your "Real Digital Unsharp Masking" technique on the same photo I was experimenting with previously. I found at the end that the photo was considerably darker so I duplicated the original untuched layer, selected Screen Mode and lowered the opacity to 70%. Above this layer is the layer with the mask applied in Luminosity Mode, opacity lowered to 50%. Below both layers is an original untouched layer. The results are good but different from the other (4 Times) method. I can't tell which is better. Both are good. I enjoyed seeing how Unsharp Masking works this way. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 03:43pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#24 of 68) The luminosity switching is the big problem with RUSM. You can control it by experimenting with setting the brightness / contrast levels, and/or with a final curves adjustment layer. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Dean Holland - 03:46pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#25 of 68) Mathias, I very much like the Real Unsharp Mark... like sharpening and a contrast mask in one. Linda... after hard unsharp masking, I sometimes attack the worst of the noise in shadows with the "Dust and Scratches" (D&S) filter on a duplicate of the image. Use a small radius (1-2) and very high threshold (30-60) to just zap those pixels that have gone way out of line. Use a luminosity mask to just let the D&S layer show through in the shadows, otherwise the image will be softened overall. It's similar to your median approach. Dean [posted from Australia] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 03:50pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#26 of 68) I'll give it a try Dean. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 04:09pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#27 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 05:13pm PST Dean: That did not work very well on the image I'm experimenting with. It seems those settings do not produce a very good blur. It actually seems to produce extra artifacts. I'm just wondering why you might have chosen those settings. When I use D&S with Radius 1, Amount 1, Luminosity Mode, Opacity 50% -- It seems to work better. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 05:59pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#28 of 68) Thank you, Mathias. --Victor <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Dean Holland - 08:37pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#29 of 68) Linda, Ah... it's probably due to differences in medium. I'm using 4000dpi scans of 35mm film, often fairly grainy film. Your digital image probably starts off with less noise, so hard USM doesn't give you the wacky pixels that I get. Play with whatever settings seem to work best for you. Good luck! Dean [posted from Australia] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 10:12pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#30 of 68) Hi Carol... RE: "Question: When you select the glowing edges, does that mean you run the Glowing Edges Filter first and then select the highlights?" Yes. "If so, how do you determine what settings to use for the Glowing Edges Filter? And then how do you determine what settings you use for the Gaussian Blur Filter? Just curious." I found an action in Adobe XChange called PhotoScan Factory that contains this technique - it's not my own. I have had to tweak the glowing edges and gaussian blur settings from time to time, but in general through trial an error have found a range of values that I like. So, I run the action with my tweaked settings, if I don't like it, I run it with the dialog boxes enabled and adjust more. In general my settings for glowing filters are: Edge Width 3 Edge Brightness 8 Smoothness 5 Then a gaussian blur of 0.9 to 1.1 is run on the lightness channel copy that had the Glowing Edges Filter run on it. Then the channel is loaded as a selection, then deleted. Finally, the glowing edges/blurred selection is Sharpened at about 180 with a radius of 2.1 and threshold of 0. After this is done, of course, it's just clean up with the lightness channel deleted and converted back to RGB mode. RE" One more thing: I assume you use this Lightness Channel Copy just as a means of loading the edges for the final step of running unsharp mask on the original channel, followed by deletion of this channel copy. Is this correct?" Exactly. I have found that by doing it this way, I experience little or no color shift as compared to most USM techniques. It is fair to point out the following. Most of my images have moire patterns - it's the nature of my work. So prior to running the sharpening procedure, the images are heavily blurred using gaussian blur (heavily =1.1 - 1.3). Since that is the case, the sharpening process I use *may* be too strong for some, but is just about perfect (or as perfect as you can get until I read another cool method in this thread <grin>) for me. I'll be reading with interest... Peace, Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:07am Jul 31, 2002 Pacific (#31 of 68) Dean: You are probably right on target there. I'm playing around with an image that I've downsized to 72dpi. It does make a difference. Thanks! Tony: Thanks for all the helpful information. I've got work to do this morning but will come back to this conversation again when I get a breather. This is quite interesting. Linda -- not Carol ) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 01:00pm Jul 31, 2002 Pacific (#32 of 68) Linda, Linda -- not Carol ) Geeze, I'm sorry - don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. You may herein refer to me as Dolt. Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:36am Aug 1, 2002 Pacific (#33 of 68) LOL -- No problem Tony. I can't wait to come back to this topic as soon as I catch up on other things and can give it more attention. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lexorin - 03:12pm Aug 1, 2002 Pacific (#34 of 68) Edited: 01-Aug-2002 at 04:17pm PST Just noticed someone already mentioned this... Convert image to LAB mode. Select the lightness channel in the channels palette. Run unsharp mask as you normally would. Revert image back to original mode. Working on just the lightness channel in lab mode keeps unsharpmask from sharpening your color values. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 12:57pm Aug 4, 2002 Pacific (#35 of 68) It never hurts to restate something like that Lexorin. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 08:21am Aug 6, 2002 Pacific (#36 of 68) Keeping this thread alive. Will be doing some intensive repairs to my hard drive, followed by reinstallation of software. I hope to come back to this thread when things are back to normal. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 12:18am Aug 8, 2002 Pacific (#37 of 68) I found aPDF about different methods of sharpening: http://www.dimage.org/NewFiles/J.%20Winberg%20Sharpening%20Presenta tionText.pdf <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 08:20am Aug 9, 2002 Pacific (#38 of 68) Pierre, That was a very nice contribution. I happen to be saving this thread as sharpening methods are extremely important. Thanks. Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Enrique Ivern - 11:07am Aug 9, 2002 Pacific (#39 of 68) Pierre, thanks...always useful to have a brief cookbook to consult! Not clear if you're the author...if so, thanks again, if not, thanks to the unknown author... Cheers. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> vEnrique Ivern - 03:11pm Aug 12, 2002 Pacific (#40 of 68) Pierre, I just printed the whole document....thanks also then to Jack Winberg, the author. Cheers, <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 12:34am Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#41 of 68) I said I've found it using Google... I'm still in the learning curve of PS (as EVERY user is ) Maybe one day... <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 01:06am Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#42 of 68) I have to say that I am having some VERY nice results from the Digital Deluxe action set, specifically the contrast masking, edge masking, and high pass sharpening. The high pass sharpening adds that "ever so little" tweak I need after my normal sharpening methods. Great Actions, Thanks! <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 08:37am Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#43 of 68) You´re welcome, Tony. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 02:59pm Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#44 of 68) I'm so glad to see that you all are still participating. This is a nice group. Thank you Pierre for the PDF link. I'm keeping busy and so unable to continue experimenting for now, but like Tony I'm keeping this thread for future use and reference. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:11pm Aug 23, 2002 Pacific (#45 of 68) Things have been hectic at this end. I have no idea when I'll have time to get back to this topic. Still, I guess I'll try to keep it alive since it contains so much good stuff. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> dave milbut - 07:20pm Aug 23, 2002 Pacific (#46 of 68) I've got Kai's PT v6... has anyone had any luck with the equalizer there for sharpening? Everything seems so drastic when I use it, alot of contrast sharpening. I'd like to hear from some people who've had more luck than me 'cuz I think I'm missing something there. Thans for a great thread, also saving. dave <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 12:48pm Aug 25, 2002 Pacific (#47 of 68) I've got KPT 6 too but never used the Equalizer. I too would be interested in comments on it. So far I just keep doing the UnSharp Mask method. It works well for most normal sharpening. Specialized sharpening seems good for special needs. Noise reduction is often just as important as sharpening. What's challenging is when you have to deal with both noise and sharpening on the same photo. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> dave milbut - 02:08pm Aug 25, 2002 Pacific (#48 of 68) For noise reduction (and addition), I'm really digging the beta of AlienSkin's Image Doctor. I can't wait for the full package to be released. You can get the beta from their site and play around with it. dave <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 03:59am Aug 26, 2002 Pacific (#49 of 68) Thanks Dave. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 11:05am Sep 9, 2002 Pacific (#50 of 68) I found this pretty nifty trick from Russell Browns Tips site. A very nice technique that plays as a QT movie. http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html Peace, Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 04:36am Sep 14, 2002 Pacific (#51 of 68) Hi Tony. I've been busy dealing with computer problems in the middle of trying to keep my work going. I've ordered a new Mac (ducking) so hopefully I will have more time when things start running smoothly again. Thanks for the link. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 04:39am Sep 14, 2002 Pacific (#52 of 68) Linda, I too am keeping a keen eye on this thread and in fact, have made a PDF out of it since I will have to review it from time to time. Since the work we do involves removing Moire patterns, sharpening is of paramount interest <wink>. Get your new system, have some fun, then... back to work for you! <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:17am Sep 14, 2002 Pacific (#53 of 68) Yes Sir! ) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 03:55am Sep 17, 2002 Pacific (#54 of 68) Again other Sharpening tutorials (not new) at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/smart_sharp.shtml an High-Pass one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/high-pass-sharpening.sh tml <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:35am Oct 1, 2002 Pacific (#55 of 68) Thanks Pierre. I'm swamped. I'll be back again. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:39am Nov 28, 2002 Pacific (#58 of 68) Edited: 28-Nov-2002 at 06:42am PST Maybe some of you might like to comment on an opposite problem. I've just done a photo correction. That part was easy. Dealing with noise is the hard part. The noise is out of control. I've tried targetting individual channels as well as going into Lab Mode but not getting the best results so far. Here is a <A HREF=http://www.graphicspalmbeach.com/porfolio/burttracyjohn.html><FO NT COLOR=ROYALBLUE>link to the page</A> I posted. You can see the noise in the enlarged eyes portion. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 04:16am Nov 29, 2002 Pacific (#59 of 68) Edited: 29-Nov-2002 at 04:17am PST Lindas, When I hear noise, I think about Mathia's Digital deluxe toolbox... http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/actions/ there are other non-freeware package for this task... try also the demo from http://www.neatimage.com/ (stand alone program) Hey, who's the guy next to Tracy and John? (on the sharpening side, I found this: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_downloads.html while searching for de-noising actions) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 05:39am Nov 29, 2002 Pacific (#60 of 68) Thanks Pierre. In this case, I think NeatImage is the better choice. De-noise Deluxe is aimed at digital noise, and this seems more like film grain to me. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:41am Nov 29, 2002 Pacific (#61 of 68) Edited: 29-Nov-2002 at 06:42am PST Pierre: Thank you for the links. << Who's the guy next to Tracy and John? >> You got it! ) Mathias: You're right, it is film grain. I had only a photo to work with. It was scanned on the Epson Expression 1680 at a higher resolution and then sized. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:27pm Dec 15, 2002 Pacific (#62 of 68) Edited: 15-Dec-2002 at 07:27pm PST I've done more practice on noise by taking the channels apart, giving each one a major overhaul, then pasting them over the original document's channels. Trouble is, what looks good on screen looks not so wonderful when printed. I really want to improve my own PS techniques rather than use a plug-in. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 10:21am Jan 10, 2003 Pacific (#63 of 68) Edited: 10-Jan-2003 at 10:22am PST I think Mathias' actions are pretty impressive. It's worth posting his LINK again. One day I plan to study each action step in detail. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 09:44am Jan 11, 2003 Pacific (#64 of 68) I agree with Lindas - Mathias' actions are part of a process that I use daily; although I've tweaked them a bit, his concept in sharpening, edge enhancement, and contrast masking is quite sweet. When I first downloaded his actions, I posted in a thread my thanks to him as once of them was the finishting touch that I needed. It's worth repeating the "Thanks!" Peace, Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Tenna Sutfin - 09:40am Jan 28, 2003 Pacific (#65 of 68) Can you send me your action for ridding yourself of moire patterns? [email protected] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> End of Archived Thread

Copied from the archive, with BUMP replies weeded out. ======================================================= Lindas Graphics - 04:29am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific Discussion on favorite sharpening methods in Photoshop. I normally use Unsharp Mask, Amount: 100 / Radius: .5 / Threshold: 0 -- followed by Fade with Luminosity Mode. Recently I've started experimenting with the Hi Pass Filter. There seems to be many different tutorials on sharpening, each one's method slightly different. I'd be interested in other user's favorite methods and why. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 05:52am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#1 of 68) At the pro level ... well then the answer must be "it depends". Regards, Victor Lee. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 07:32am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#2 of 68) This is a good starting point: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11242.html Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 07:41am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#3 of 68) Mathias, Thanks for that link. Another good article from Bruce. But I'm a little puzzled by "Figure 1a: Unsharpened" which to me is clearly sharpened already. Regards, Victor Lee. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 10:32am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#4 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 11:34am PST Mathias: I remember reading that tutorial in the past but forgot where it was. Bruce Fraser is one of my favorites when it comes to Photoshop. I've printed the tutorial along with the follow-up one he did. I'm glad you posted the link. Thanks! I'm interested in the methods you people use for sharpening. Does anyone else use the High Pass Filter? <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 11:30am Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#5 of 68) Linda, Yes, I do. I use the overlay sharpening technique. Sometimes. It really depends on the subject. For web photos, I often use PS´ USM with a setting of 50, 0.3, and then re-apply it often four times. If you don´t know what the right radius setting should be, first, pull up the amount setting to max, then adjust the radius setting untill the right details are sharpened, then lower the amount to a reasonable setting - and then use 25% of this amount and re-apply four times. Works for me! See http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/actions/ for various techniques I´ve recorded, including the overlay sharpening technique. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 12:47pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#6 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 01:48pm PST I use a technique that has delivered reliable results for me, for what it's worth... I convert the image to lab mode, and make my adjustments on the the Lightness layer (a copy really) to avoid color shifts. I basically select the glowing edges, apply a gaussian blur filter, then basically, apply the Unsharp filter. When it's finished, I convert back to RGB mode. Its not original, it's a modification of an action found in PhotoScan Factory actions found in Xchange. But it produces VERY good results for me on MOST of the stuff I do. I hope this thread keeps going as sharpening is of huge iterest to me since my work requires the removal of moire patterns. [edit] By the way, i use the high pass filter followed by fade on the textual portions of my images (black text on a white background) that have been overblurred by the gaussian blurr filter. It produces some pretty nice results for me. Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:55pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#7 of 68) Now this is getting interesting. I appreciate the elaboration. I look forward to trying your techniques and variation. Thanks Mathias and Tony. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> glen deman - 07:45pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#8 of 68) You can also sharpen individual channels. Try sharpening (or unsharpening, I guess it is!) the "weakest" channel of the image, or the channel with the least detail. I've found that this will often be the red channel; when you do this, you sharpen the image but avoid some of the pitfalls of sharpening, like halos and artifacts. I think I saw this in Photoshop Artistry. Glen <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Danny Raphael - 09:34pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#9 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 10:37pm PST Here's a no cost edge sharpening action that's pretty nifty. Scroll down to the BOTTOM of this page at FredMiranda.com: http://www.fredmiranda.com/Action_profilesPage/index.html <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 10:57pm Jul 23, 2002 Pacific (#10 of 68) Edited: 23-Jul-2002 at 11:58pm PST Danny, I would say LOW cost, not NO cost - he's charging $8.50 for the action. Personally, I'll pass. Thanks for the link though. Peace, Tony [Edit] DOH! I didn't scroll down far enough, there's a "lite" version offered for free below the one he charges for. My mistake, sorry. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mark Reynolds - 05:25am Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#11 of 68) Seems fairly pointless - I can almost tell you what the $8.50 will get; you: Make an edge mask first using the Find Edges filter on an alpha channel. This can then be blurred slightly and Levels adjusted. Duplicate the base layer and run unsharp mask to taste on the duplicate. Load the alpha channel into a layer mask on the Sharpened layer. This will sharpen the edges only - very useful for skin tones where you don't want any accentuation of noise and texture. The layer mask can also be adjusted (Blur and Levels again, and Maximum ) to enhance or spread the sharpening. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 06:09am Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#12 of 68) I´m one of those that believe that Freds actions, although valuable, are not worth the money. But I know that a lot of people are willing to pay. Actually, seeing Fred charging for his actions was a major motivator for me to develop the digital deluxe action set. - Which is free ofcourse. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Don Stefanik - 12:02pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#13 of 68) Edited: 24-Jul-2002 at 01:04pm PST And a great set of actions they are Mathias... I use them quite a bit. They are one of my favorites. Don <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 02:13pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#14 of 68) Thanks Don, Only the de-noise actions are my own invention, the rest are variations of known techniques, invented by others. I just recorded and published them. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Dean Holland - 04:43pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#15 of 68) An off-the-wall sharpening approach that I use very occasionally. Sometimes a subject (especially plain tones) can stand strong amounts of only the light or the dark part of the USM halo. You can separate them thus: Duplicate the layer and USM the copy (you can go slightly harder than normal). Duplicate the copy, and change the blend mode of one copy to lighten, and the other copy to darken. At 100% opacity for both copies, you have the normal effect of the USM, but by varying the opacity of these layers, you can separate the amount of lighter halo and darker halo the subject gets, allowing slightly more USM than normal without it looking too crunchy or noisy. I think I read this in Dan Margulis' Book Professional Guide to Color Correction, which has an excellent chapter on sharpening with heaps of other ideas. Warm regards, Dean [Posted from Australia] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 05:38pm Jul 24, 2002 Pacific (#16 of 68) Very cool ideas people. I'm enjoying this and keeping notes for when I can stop long enough to experiment on different kinds of images. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 12:17pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#17 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 01:28pm PST I'm back and want to keep this thread alive. Re-reading your posts and think your ideas so far are interesting. The link Mathias provided also covers Noise. I think dealing with Noise goes right along with the topic of Sharpening. I welcome your comments on Noise as well. I personally try to deal with Noise channel by channel. As a rule the blue channel seems to have the most Noise. But what I find tricky is when the sharpest channel (usually green) ends up having the most Noise, which does happen sometimes. My method is to use the Median Filter on the Noisy Channel then Fade. If you do it channel by channel you cannot use Luminosity Mode though -- one advantange of correcting all the channels together. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 01:07pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#18 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 02:27pm PST Re Post #5: <<For web photos, I often use PS´ USM with a setting of 50, 0.3, and then re-apply it often four times. If you don´t know what the right radius setting should be, first, pull up the amount setting to max, then adjust the radius setting untill the right details are sharpened, then lower the amount to a reasonable setting - and then use 25% of this amount and re-apply four times. >> Mathias: On Web photos I'm curious why you do the sharpening in quarters instead of all at once. I assume that you do not use the Fade filter combined with Luminosity Mode. I am experimenting on a low res photo of an older person I recently took with my digital camera. I tried it both ways (all at once and in 4ths) but cannot seem to see any difference between the two methods. By the way, I'm not trying to find holes in your methods, on the contrary I think they are interesting and I'm enjoying the challenge. Oh yes, and another thing -- Your method of determining Radius is helpful. I tried that and came up with the same setting you did: .3 <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 01:44pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#19 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 02:46pm PST Okay Tony, it's your turn. ) I'm slowing making my way down the list. Re: Post #6 << I convert the image to lab mode, and make my adjustments on the the Lightness layer (a copy really) to avoid color shifts. I basically select the glowing edges, apply a gaussian blur filter, then basically, apply the Unsharp filter. When it's finished, I convert back to RGB mode. >> Question: When you select the glowing edges, does that mean you run the Glowing Edges Filter first and then select the highlights? If so, how do you determine what settings to use for the Glowing Edges Filter? And then how do you determine what settings you use for the Gaussian Blur Filter? Just curious. One more thing: I assume you use this Lightness Channel Copy just as a means of loading the edges for the final step of running unsharp mask on the original channel, followed by deletion of this channel copy. Is this correct? <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 02:47pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#20 of 68) Linda, I have also developed a noise action that basically medians the L+a+b channels manually, and applies a 'manual' edgemask. This action demands more selective mask editing, and more user input, but it is 'stepless' - usable on all ISO speeds. This action, which is just a classic median de-noiser with a twitch, is not published yet. The subject of noise is pretty big.. It is also interesting. Sharpen in four steps Try it on another image. You really need different sharping for each image. Examine at 200%. The edge halos in the stepped version is less pronounced. You can use this stepping method on all the classic filters and techniques for a better resampled pixel. I assume that you do not use the Fade filter combined with Luminosity Mode. I used to do that. Now I sharpen a merged layer and put this in Luminosity mode to avoid any color shifted pixels, and to keep everything neat and un-destructed. If I want, I apply an edgemask to this layer. There´s another method I use. This method is called <a href=http://www.astropix.com/HTML/J_DIGIT/USM.HTM>Real Unsharp Mask</A> (I´ve got it actionized as well). It is very nice for certain subjects and contrast enhancements. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 02:55pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#21 of 68) Mathias, There was some mention of actions that you have for download. I'd like to try them. Where are they please? Regards, Victor Lee. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 03:30pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#22 of 68) Here: http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/actions/ (I think its listed in my profile.) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 03:40pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#23 of 68) Mathias: I tried your "Real Digital Unsharp Masking" technique on the same photo I was experimenting with previously. I found at the end that the photo was considerably darker so I duplicated the original untuched layer, selected Screen Mode and lowered the opacity to 70%. Above this layer is the layer with the mask applied in Luminosity Mode, opacity lowered to 50%. Below both layers is an original untouched layer. The results are good but different from the other (4 Times) method. I can't tell which is better. Both are good. I enjoyed seeing how Unsharp Masking works this way. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 03:43pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#24 of 68) The luminosity switching is the big problem with RUSM. You can control it by experimenting with setting the brightness / contrast levels, and/or with a final curves adjustment layer. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Dean Holland - 03:46pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#25 of 68) Mathias, I very much like the Real Unsharp Mark... like sharpening and a contrast mask in one. Linda... after hard unsharp masking, I sometimes attack the worst of the noise in shadows with the "Dust and Scratches" (D&S) filter on a duplicate of the image. Use a small radius (1-2) and very high threshold (30-60) to just zap those pixels that have gone way out of line. Use a luminosity mask to just let the D&S layer show through in the shadows, otherwise the image will be softened overall. It's similar to your median approach. Dean [posted from Australia] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 03:50pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#26 of 68) I'll give it a try Dean. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 04:09pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#27 of 68) Edited: 30-Jul-2002 at 05:13pm PST Dean: That did not work very well on the image I'm experimenting with. It seems those settings do not produce a very good blur. It actually seems to produce extra artifacts. I'm just wondering why you might have chosen those settings. When I use D&S with Radius 1, Amount 1, Luminosity Mode, Opacity 50% -- It seems to work better. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> pleader - 05:59pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#28 of 68) Thank you, Mathias. --Victor <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Dean Holland - 08:37pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#29 of 68) Linda, Ah... it's probably due to differences in medium. I'm using 4000dpi scans of 35mm film, often fairly grainy film. Your digital image probably starts off with less noise, so hard USM doesn't give you the wacky pixels that I get. Play with whatever settings seem to work best for you. Good luck! Dean [posted from Australia] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 10:12pm Jul 30, 2002 Pacific (#30 of 68) Hi Carol... RE: "Question: When you select the glowing edges, does that mean you run the Glowing Edges Filter first and then select the highlights?" Yes. "If so, how do you determine what settings to use for the Glowing Edges Filter? And then how do you determine what settings you use for the Gaussian Blur Filter? Just curious." I found an action in Adobe XChange called PhotoScan Factory that contains this technique - it's not my own. I have had to tweak the glowing edges and gaussian blur settings from time to time, but in general through trial an error have found a range of values that I like. So, I run the action with my tweaked settings, if I don't like it, I run it with the dialog boxes enabled and adjust more. In general my settings for glowing filters are: Edge Width 3 Edge Brightness 8 Smoothness 5 Then a gaussian blur of 0.9 to 1.1 is run on the lightness channel copy that had the Glowing Edges Filter run on it. Then the channel is loaded as a selection, then deleted. Finally, the glowing edges/blurred selection is Sharpened at about 180 with a radius of 2.1 and threshold of 0. After this is done, of course, it's just clean up with the lightness channel deleted and converted back to RGB mode. RE" One more thing: I assume you use this Lightness Channel Copy just as a means of loading the edges for the final step of running unsharp mask on the original channel, followed by deletion of this channel copy. Is this correct?" Exactly. I have found that by doing it this way, I experience little or no color shift as compared to most USM techniques. It is fair to point out the following. Most of my images have moire patterns - it's the nature of my work. So prior to running the sharpening procedure, the images are heavily blurred using gaussian blur (heavily =1.1 - 1.3). Since that is the case, the sharpening process I use *may* be too strong for some, but is just about perfect (or as perfect as you can get until I read another cool method in this thread <grin>) for me. I'll be reading with interest... Peace, Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:07am Jul 31, 2002 Pacific (#31 of 68) Dean: You are probably right on target there. I'm playing around with an image that I've downsized to 72dpi. It does make a difference. Thanks! Tony: Thanks for all the helpful information. I've got work to do this morning but will come back to this conversation again when I get a breather. This is quite interesting. Linda -- not Carol ) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 01:00pm Jul 31, 2002 Pacific (#32 of 68) Linda, Linda -- not Carol ) Geeze, I'm sorry - don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that. You may herein refer to me as Dolt. Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:36am Aug 1, 2002 Pacific (#33 of 68) LOL -- No problem Tony. I can't wait to come back to this topic as soon as I catch up on other things and can give it more attention. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lexorin - 03:12pm Aug 1, 2002 Pacific (#34 of 68) Edited: 01-Aug-2002 at 04:17pm PST Just noticed someone already mentioned this... Convert image to LAB mode. Select the lightness channel in the channels palette. Run unsharp mask as you normally would. Revert image back to original mode. Working on just the lightness channel in lab mode keeps unsharpmask from sharpening your color values. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 12:57pm Aug 4, 2002 Pacific (#35 of 68) It never hurts to restate something like that Lexorin. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 08:21am Aug 6, 2002 Pacific (#36 of 68) Keeping this thread alive. Will be doing some intensive repairs to my hard drive, followed by reinstallation of software. I hope to come back to this thread when things are back to normal. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 12:18am Aug 8, 2002 Pacific (#37 of 68) I found aPDF about different methods of sharpening: http://www.dimage.org/NewFiles/J.%20Winberg%20Sharpening%20Presenta tionText.pdf <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 08:20am Aug 9, 2002 Pacific (#38 of 68) Pierre, That was a very nice contribution. I happen to be saving this thread as sharpening methods are extremely important. Thanks. Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Enrique Ivern - 11:07am Aug 9, 2002 Pacific (#39 of 68) Pierre, thanks...always useful to have a brief cookbook to consult! Not clear if you're the author...if so, thanks again, if not, thanks to the unknown author... Cheers. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> vEnrique Ivern - 03:11pm Aug 12, 2002 Pacific (#40 of 68) Pierre, I just printed the whole document....thanks also then to Jack Winberg, the author. Cheers, <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 12:34am Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#41 of 68) I said I've found it using Google... I'm still in the learning curve of PS (as EVERY user is ) Maybe one day... <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 01:06am Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#42 of 68) I have to say that I am having some VERY nice results from the Digital Deluxe action set, specifically the contrast masking, edge masking, and high pass sharpening. The high pass sharpening adds that "ever so little" tweak I need after my normal sharpening methods. Great Actions, Thanks! <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 08:37am Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#43 of 68) You´re welcome, Tony. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 02:59pm Aug 13, 2002 Pacific (#44 of 68) I'm so glad to see that you all are still participating. This is a nice group. Thank you Pierre for the PDF link. I'm keeping busy and so unable to continue experimenting for now, but like Tony I'm keeping this thread for future use and reference. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:11pm Aug 23, 2002 Pacific (#45 of 68) Things have been hectic at this end. I have no idea when I'll have time to get back to this topic. Still, I guess I'll try to keep it alive since it contains so much good stuff. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> dave milbut - 07:20pm Aug 23, 2002 Pacific (#46 of 68) I've got Kai's PT v6... has anyone had any luck with the equalizer there for sharpening? Everything seems so drastic when I use it, alot of contrast sharpening. I'd like to hear from some people who've had more luck than me 'cuz I think I'm missing something there. Thans for a great thread, also saving. dave <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 12:48pm Aug 25, 2002 Pacific (#47 of 68) I've got KPT 6 too but never used the Equalizer. I too would be interested in comments on it. So far I just keep doing the UnSharp Mask method. It works well for most normal sharpening. Specialized sharpening seems good for special needs. Noise reduction is often just as important as sharpening. What's challenging is when you have to deal with both noise and sharpening on the same photo. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> dave milbut - 02:08pm Aug 25, 2002 Pacific (#48 of 68) For noise reduction (and addition), I'm really digging the beta of AlienSkin's Image Doctor. I can't wait for the full package to be released. You can get the beta from their site and play around with it. dave <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 03:59am Aug 26, 2002 Pacific (#49 of 68) Thanks Dave. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 11:05am Sep 9, 2002 Pacific (#50 of 68) I found this pretty nifty trick from Russell Browns Tips site. A very nice technique that plays as a QT movie. http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html Peace, Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 04:36am Sep 14, 2002 Pacific (#51 of 68) Hi Tony. I've been busy dealing with computer problems in the middle of trying to keep my work going. I've ordered a new Mac (ducking) so hopefully I will have more time when things start running smoothly again. Thanks for the link. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 04:39am Sep 14, 2002 Pacific (#52 of 68) Linda, I too am keeping a keen eye on this thread and in fact, have made a PDF out of it since I will have to review it from time to time. Since the work we do involves removing Moire patterns, sharpening is of paramount interest <wink>. Get your new system, have some fun, then... back to work for you! <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:17am Sep 14, 2002 Pacific (#53 of 68) Yes Sir! ) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 03:55am Sep 17, 2002 Pacific (#54 of 68) Again other Sharpening tutorials (not new) at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/smart_sharp.shtml an High-Pass one: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/high-pass-sharpening.sh tml <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:35am Oct 1, 2002 Pacific (#55 of 68) Thanks Pierre. I'm swamped. I'll be back again. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:39am Nov 28, 2002 Pacific (#58 of 68) Edited: 28-Nov-2002 at 06:42am PST Maybe some of you might like to comment on an opposite problem. I've just done a photo correction. That part was easy. Dealing with noise is the hard part. The noise is out of control. I've tried targetting individual channels as well as going into Lab Mode but not getting the best results so far. Here is a <A HREF=http://www.graphicspalmbeach.com/porfolio/burttracyjohn.html><FO NT COLOR=ROYALBLUE>link to the page</A> I posted. You can see the noise in the enlarged eyes portion. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Pierre Courtejoie - 04:16am Nov 29, 2002 Pacific (#59 of 68) Edited: 29-Nov-2002 at 04:17am PST Lindas, When I hear noise, I think about Mathia's Digital deluxe toolbox... http://www.2morrow.dk/75ppi/coolpix/actions/ there are other non-freeware package for this task... try also the demo from http://www.neatimage.com/ (stand alone program) Hey, who's the guy next to Tracy and John? (on the sharpening side, I found this: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_downloads.html while searching for de-noising actions) <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Mathias Vejerslev - 05:39am Nov 29, 2002 Pacific (#60 of 68) Thanks Pierre. In this case, I think NeatImage is the better choice. De-noise Deluxe is aimed at digital noise, and this seems more like film grain to me. Mathias <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 06:41am Nov 29, 2002 Pacific (#61 of 68) Edited: 29-Nov-2002 at 06:42am PST Pierre: Thank you for the links. << Who's the guy next to Tracy and John? >> You got it! ) Mathias: You're right, it is film grain. I had only a photo to work with. It was scanned on the Epson Expression 1680 at a higher resolution and then sized. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 07:27pm Dec 15, 2002 Pacific (#62 of 68) Edited: 15-Dec-2002 at 07:27pm PST I've done more practice on noise by taking the channels apart, giving each one a major overhaul, then pasting them over the original document's channels. Trouble is, what looks good on screen looks not so wonderful when printed. I really want to improve my own PS techniques rather than use a plug-in. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Lindas Graphics - 10:21am Jan 10, 2003 Pacific (#63 of 68) Edited: 10-Jan-2003 at 10:22am PST I think Mathias' actions are pretty impressive. It's worth posting his LINK again. One day I plan to study each action step in detail. <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> YrbkMgr - 09:44am Jan 11, 2003 Pacific (#64 of 68) I agree with Lindas - Mathias' actions are part of a process that I use daily; although I've tweaked them a bit, his concept in sharpening, edge enhancement, and contrast masking is quite sweet. When I first downloaded his actions, I posted in a thread my thanks to him as once of them was the finishting touch that I needed. It's worth repeating the "Thanks!" Peace, Tony <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> Tenna Sutfin - 09:40am Jan 28, 2003 Pacific (#65 of 68) Can you send me your action for ridding yourself of moire patterns? [email protected] <hr SIZE="1" NOSHADE> End of Archived Thread

Could not complete the smart sharpen command because there is not enough memory (RAM)

Hi,
I'm trying to complete the AutoSharpen (Filter->Sharpen->AutoSharpen) feature but, i'm getting the following error when i click on "Ok".
Error in Dialogue Box "Could not complete the smart sharpen command because there is not enough memory (RAM)".
Request the SME's and Adobe community team members to help me overcome this step to proceed further.
I'm using a 32 Bit Win7 OS and have a 4GB RAM on board.
Regards,
Sachin_

As Curt says, Photoshop got more hungry for RAM from CS4, and 32bit systems just weren't cutting it, but there was a trick we used to use to squeeze a bigger slice of the available installed 4Gb
Run the Command Prompt as Administrator, and type:
"bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVa 3072" (I can't remember whether the quote marks are needed or not.)
That used to work for me with XP, and it is _supposed_ to work with Windows 7, but I know it doesn't always.
If it doesn't work, or has unwanted consequences, turn it off with:
"bcdedit /deletevalue IncreaseUserVa"
If you want to research it before trying, seach for 'Windows 7 3Gb switch'.

I am trying to sharpen the scanned image of an old picture. When I use the sharpen tool in the book mode, the picture is momentarily sharpen when I hold mouse button down then fades to prior condition.

I am working on a book (theme: photo essay). I have a scanned image of an old photo which is fuzy. I try to use the sharpen tool. When I hold the track pad down to make an adjustment and then release the pad, the image is momentarily sharper then fades to its prior state. How can I get the sharp version to stay?

I am working on a book (theme: photo essay). I have a scanned image of an old photo which is fuzy. I try to use the sharpen tool. When I hold the track pad down to make an adjustment and then release the pad, the image is momentarily sharper then fades to its prior state. How can I get the sharp version to stay?

What is the best workflow for Ultimate Sharpening w PSE 8?

I shoot a lot of flowers close up and also birds. Both have lots of detail, feathers or stamen, so I rely heavily on sharpening. With birds, sometimes they are flying or distant or both which makes it challenging to get the pics sharp. Recently I have learned more about sharpening and now I am suffering from, "The more I know, the more I know I don't know." Also, some of my information is based on rumor and I would really appreciate any advice. How about if I discuss my workflow and ask some questions here and there.
I shoot RAW with a Canon 7D and I almost always downsize my pics to nnnn x 1080 for this conversation, lets assume I always do this downsizing. I've heard that downsized pics should never be sharpened until after they are downsized. Is this true? Should I set all of the ACR sharpening sliders to zero? Should I also keep the Clarity slider low in ACR or is it more mid-tone contrast and less sharpening? Is there another way to improve Clarity in PSE, not ACR?
When I am done with ACR and open in Elements, the first thing I do is crop and resize using Image, Resize, Bicubic Sharper. Then I fix blemishes. Next I select out the subject(s) and adjust with Color Curves and then Luminous Sharpening which seems to give me better results than Enhance- Adjust Sharpness. (After two years of using Elements I just found this Luminous sharpening and it is so good. I sure wish I would have notice that in Brundage's book earlier. I makes me wonder what else I am missing.) After the Luminous Sharpening should I try High Pass sharpening additionally or any other kind of sharpening? Are there any rules of thumb on when what type of sharpening works best in which application? For example, I heard another rumor that sharpening highlights or dark shadows just increases noise. Is there a good way to handle those situations, like select them out or use a special blend mode?
After I am done with the subject, I usually inverse to the background and de-noise and/or blurr and desaturate to punch up the subject.
Is full Photoshop required to get the best sharpening tools or is the sharpening similar and other aspects are more powerful? I use so little of Elements 8 that I would assume and hope that Photoshop or Lightroom would be overkill at this point.
Thank you for reviewing this! If you can think of any way I could improve I would really appreciate any comments.
Doug

Hi Barbara,
I am humbled to be communicating with someone who wrote such and incredible book! Ok, enough blathering.
This will also answer Andrewzaye's question about output.
Maybe I shouldn't be resampling but here is my rationale. Most of my best pics I like to show occasionally on my HTDV which has a resolution of 1920x 1080. I resample my pics to get them down to that 1080 vertical resolution so that they will fit the native resolution of the screen. (The sides often don't extend the full 1920 but I don't have a problem with the black space on the sides.) This is based on my believe that images on LCDs look best at the LCDs native resolution (and I like to think I know about this because, as a sales mgr for Toshiba, I used to sell notebook computer LCDs by the tens of thousands to big computer companies.) Sometimes I resample and downsize again to email pics as n x 680. It seems to work fine with decent results but I am certainly open to suggestion.
If I eventually decide to print out a photo, it will be to hang on a wall and for that I save the original CR2 file and the post ACR dng files. If I like something enough to print it, I don't mind editing it again and making sure I am getting it as good as possible. Of course I would keep as much resolution as possible for printing.
Ok, those are my excuses. I would love to hear your thoughts on my sharpening questions.
Doug

I am using Photoshop CS5 on a new iMac with a wireless keyboard. I used to be able to hit F11 to perform a custom sharpening action but now the F11 key is the volume control key and I have tried everything to disable or switch the volume key. I have also

I am using Photoshop CS5 on a new iMac with a wireless keyboard. I used to be able to hit F11 to perform a custom sharpening action but now the F11 key is the volume control key and I have tried everything to disable or switch the volume key. I have also tried assigning other function keys to initiate the action. Is there a simple solution to this? What am I missing?

Try unmounting the volume on your iMac using Disk Utility. Then mount it again. You may need to reboot the laptop or relaunch its Finder process (using the Force Quit window) after remounting the drive on your iMac. Remember that no process may be accessing any files on the drive you plan to unmount, or the unmount will fail. Unmounting and remounting an external drive on my iMac made it become visible on my MacBook Pro after it had disappeared.

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.

Why does PhotoShop CC 2014 crash my Windows 7 Professional 64-bit PC every time I try to use Sharpen/Blur Reduction and also Noise Reduction ??!!!???

Hi Adobe
You a have a really wonderful PhotoShop CC product. It's really great, and I know new versions such as 2014 have their teething problems.
But I am getting really sick of my Windows 7 Professional 64-bit PC being crashed whenever I try to use PhotoShop CC 2014 Sharpen / Blur Reduction and also Noise Reduction.
This happens both with JPG's and PSD's.
Please sort your **** out and get some patches out to address this quickly !!
Chris Tattersall

Chris,
It doesn't crash for everyone. A person could be forgiven for saying, in return, "Please sort out your **** system problems".
Trust me when I say many, many problems are caused by the computer system setup not being up to the needs of this cutting-edge graphics software. Photoshop is heavily dependent on the GPU, and GPU drivers are notorious for having bugs (they're primarily written to run games).
However, that being said, recent driver releases from both ATI and nVidia do actually work pretty well with Photoshop CC 2014.
What video card do you have?
What display driver version are you running?
If you're unsure how to tell these things, go into Photoshop, choose Help - System Info, copy the data, and post it here.
-Noel

Smart Sharpen not Working in CC 2014

Recently I upgraded from CC to CC 2014. Since then I can't get Smart Sharpen to work. Lens and motion blur don't work at all. Sometimes when I choose Gaussian blur it works other times not.
It's not just me, a friend who has it installed on two computers can't make it work either.
Any ideas?

In order to preview .php pages locally, you need a local testing server (Wamp, Xampp, Mamp). Is yours properly defined in DW CC? See screenshots.
Nancy O.

Sharpening with Elements on a Nikon D70 (w/ kit lens)

As much as I love this camera, I can't help but feel that I should be getting sharper images from it. I realize that much is left up to me as far as post-processing, and that's okay, that's why I bought Elements in the first place (I'm using version 3 for Mac).
Initially, all I shot was in the JPEG format, but now that I have version 3, I've moved to RAW. I like the way I can change exposure, white balance, and the like using the RAW plug-in, but I still don't see a signifigant difference when it comes to sharpening. My suspicion is that it's something to do with my workflow; maybe I should forego Camera RAW sharpening and just stick to USM? Or maybe I'm just missing the whole point when it comes down to sharpening an image. This seems to be the one major "hurdle" I have right now (well, that and just getting the hang of RAW, which is STILL Greek to me).
I would REALLY like to hear from you Nikon users who may have some tips. I know that this camera is capable of much more than I'm currently getting out of it. Thanks for your time.
Tony

Shooting RAW will not provide an initially sharper image, but will provide much better dynamic range and bypass all in-camera processing. This gives you more latitude in what you can do with your post processing and also eliminates the degradation of continually saving changes in JPEG, which compresses each time you save. I normally save in TIFF or PDF before I create a final JPEG image. Still, using USM as a first and last step, or just a last step, is the easiest way I've found of sharpening your image. My Canon Rebel XT uses stronger AA filters in the camera resulting in even softer images than your Nikon. This is done to avoid moire in the images. I almost always use USM to correct for this.
With many DSLR cameras, the out of camera images are much softer than you'd get out of a point and shoot. Generally, less processing is done in the camera as you get into the "prosumer" level of cameras. You are expected to sharpen out of the camera. The Canon, and to a lesser degree Nikon, message boards are filled with new users complaining about the softness of their images. Remember that less in-camera processing creates fewer artifacts that you'll have to deal with later. Another point is that the lens on a DSLR is critical in how sharp your image can be. Depth of field and camera shake are other factors that you must take into account. There's a lot going on here.
USM itself can be used to accentuate contrast by applying low amount/high radius/low threshold, or any range of sharpening through higher amount/low radius and 0 or higher threshold depending on how soft you want the subject to appear.
With all this, I frequently still shoot in JPEG when I expect to do little processing because of the subject and/or conditions. Also, if I'm shooting a lot of pictures, I do tend to get lazy and want to minimize my workflow. Shame on me. ;-)

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.

Sharpening

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for