Which degree of sharpening do you prefer?

[Juli Valley]

Which of these two images do you prefer? One has been sharpened some but not as much as the other. I'm not sure what I think and various people have disagreed on this. What's your opinion?

1. 1

or #2

 

[DanielT]

Which of these two images do you prefer? One has been sharpened
some but not as much as the other. I'm not sure what I think and
various people have disagreed on this. What's your opinion?

1. 1

or #2



--

 

[Nicole62214]

Looks more natural. Very good shot Juli

Nicole

 

[Juli Valley]

Both print nicely. I'm trying to decide if I want to buy the sharpening action that made the second photo.

 

[critter1]

Generally, I am a fan of sharpening. However, for this particular picture I like #1 more as being more natural.

 

[Leo Reinhard]

1. 1 Juli. The second one looks oversharpened and not natural on my monitor; also look at the noise around the whiskers of #2.

Which of these two images do you prefer? One has been sharpened
some but not as much as the other. I'm not sure what I think and
various people have disagreed on this. What's your opinion?

1. 1

or #2



--

--
Leo R
http://www.pbase.com/leopr

 

[codfish]

--
codfish

 

[Wynn Aker]

The first one looks perfect for the screen, but printing can take advantage of over-sharpening. Try printing each one out as an experiment. That's why my batch actions are for web only, and if printing (far fewer instances of printing) I "touch" each one, and over-sharpen.

Outstanding picture, by the way. I see you got some lions! I'm jealous! You'll note a lack of lions in my zoo folder, eh?

Wynn

Which of these two images do you prefer? One has been sharpened
some but not as much as the other. I'm not sure what I think and
various people have disagreed on this. What's your opinion?

1. 1

or #2



--

 

[RichW]

The second one is overdone. Great picture!

Rich

 

[RichW]

very bad artifacts caused by compression or sharpening or probably both.

Rich

1. 1 Juli. The second one looks oversharpened and not natural on my

monitor; also look at the noise around the whiskers of #2.

 

[Juli Valley]

I think you are probably on to something. The second one does look fantastic printed.

Zoo shoots are a crapshoot. Sometimes the animals are cooperative and sometimes not. The gorilla was a joy this trip as was the leopard. I'm less happy with the lion shots. You can always depend on the zebras.

 

[codfish]

I think you are probably on to something. The second one does look
fantastic printed.

i'm curious...does the over-sharpened look go away when printed? did you print both out? and if so, what differences did you see between them printed out that we aren't seeing on our monitors?
--
codfish

 

[Leo Reinhard]

Mmmm Juli maybe I need to learn something here. I have always needed to sharpen more for web than for printing. I have found that my printer ( Epson 1280 ) always produced more detail than what the same image showed on my monitor.

If I print an image that looks sharp on my monitor it looks oversharpened in the print.

I wonder if my settings in Qimage are causing this or if the resolution of my monitor is too low?

I think you are probably on to something. The second one does look
fantastic printed.
Zoo shoots are a crapshoot. Sometimes the animals are cooperative
and sometimes not. The gorilla was a joy this trip as was the
leopard. I'm less happy with the lion shots. You can always depend
on the zebras.

--
Leo R
http://www.pbase.com/leopr

 

[ashton lamont]

Agreed - 1st for web. The 2nd looks oversharpened around the whiskas making them too prominent.

However for print aren't you supposed to sharpen to just over what looks right on screen to achieve the best print reproduction? Again, the larger the print the higher the USM. I nearly always use fred mirandas D60 USM action set on medium or high for prints at 10by8. (menu is very low; low; medium; high; higher; very high) Otherwise I do it myself in LAB mode.
What action are you studying?

I think you are probably on to something. The second one does look
fantastic printed.
Zoo shoots are a crapshoot. Sometimes the animals are cooperative
and sometimes not. The gorilla was a joy this trip as was the
leopard. I'm less happy with the lion shots. You can always depend
on the zebras.

--
Pete

 

[Juli Valley]

I'm not sure what the person who used the sharpening action did, but the 2nd one is slightly wider and longer. The noise may be a little more noticeable in the background on #2, but it really pops.

 

[Juli Valley]

I'm not the one to ask. I'm not sure which I like better.

 

[Juli Valley]

The man who sharpened #2 used FLEXSharp. It's available for $25 from [email protected] via paypal. I am trying to decide if I want to buy it, continue using USM in PS, or get Fred Miranda's action.

 

[Juli Valley]

This is what Julius had to say about the action.

This is a very complex action with a manual how to use it most successfully. The best thing about it is that it does not wash out the highlights but leaves all the colors untouched and does not sharpen anything like blue skies or any other part of the image which does not have any details in it and does not introduce any noise. It also has an undo feature, so you can try various amount of sharpening before you finalize the image.
What it will do to your pictures you can not even imagine. It works
especially well on the 10D files since the details are more hidden under the
heavy Highpass filter on the CMOS

 

[codfish]

you've given us food for thought...
--
codfish

 

[DavidP #28649]

1. 2 is WAY oversharpened

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers