Capture 2 Sharpening??

Stephen Livick · Sep 2, 2001

Hello Everybody,

I ran some tests today sharpening some D1X images the Paul Caldwell way and the same image done in the Ron Resnick way. And both my wife and I picked Pau'ls way as giving the better more crisp looking and sharper image in the end.

This was on 12x18 inch prints on Epson's archival matt paper using my Epson 1270 printer.

Paul's way or what I was actually doing suggested by him is to shoot with no in camera sharpening and then set the Advanced Raw setting in Capture two to HIGH and then use the unsharp masking to 35% to 40% sometimes up to 50% . I go to 50% at times but Paul stays with 35 to 40%.

Ron's way is to shoot with no sharpening and only use the Unsharpmasking to 75% with 5 radius and 4 or 8 threshold.

It was a 125 ISO NEF image of rock in water with lots of bright highlights in the reflections. Nef is what I shoot when doing single image captures. I know Ron said that there is a lot of noise and halo effect in the image when using the advanced raw settings but to be honest with you I saw more of what I think of as halo effect using Ron's method. I was printing rock in water with a lot of white spectral highlights which looked better on the print using Paul's Advanced Raw method.

As far as noise I could not see any in the image but don't really know what to look for. Paul's style of image actually looks great to me and Karen as well. And I don't see any more "noise" in Paul's' style of print over Ron' s style of sharpening. Perhaps when looking at the seperate channels at 100% mag on the monitor its much more noticable but not so in my finished Ink Jet prints.

So these two guys Ron and Paul have been guide posts in this digital world. With out them the learning pace would be much slower.

Many thanks to both of them for their time and generous advice, the people of this forum salute both of you for dragging us behind you.

Stephen

-- http://www.livick.com

Ron Reznick · Sep 2, 2001

When outputting to inkjet, you can get away with both more sharpening and depending on the surface you are printing on, more noise in the background as well. You do have to watch it more when printing to a high-gloss surface as at least I can notice edge-halo far easier on that sort of surface than on matte.

I select my sharpening settings so that edge-halo is not noticeable and background or other gradients maintain their smoothness. If I am printing to matte, I may increase sharpening a tad, but I always assume that an image is going to high-gloss when doing the main processing prior to burning to CD. If I need a different output later I can either alter that image or re-work the NEF, as needed.

Each person has to make their own decisions as to how to process their work, and I supply information based on my own guidelines, which of course are only valid for me -- if you are going to use the info it's best to just use it as a starting point...

Ron

Stephen Livick said:
Hello Everybody,

I ran some tests today sharpening some D1X images the Paul
Caldwell way and the same image done in the Ron Resnick way. And
both my wife and I picked Pau'ls way as giving the better more
crisp looking and sharper image in the end.

This was on 12x18 inch prints on Epson's archival matt paper using
my Epson 1270 printer.

Paul's way or what I was actually doing suggested by him is to
shoot with no in camera sharpening and then set the Advanced Raw
setting in Capture two to HIGH and then use the unsharp masking to
35% to 40% sometimes up to 50% . I go to 50% at times but Paul
stays with 35 to 40%.

Ron's way is to shoot with no sharpening and only use the
Unsharpmasking to 75% with 5 radius and 4 or 8 threshold.

It was a 125 ISO NEF image of rock in water with lots of bright
highlights in the reflections. Nef is what I shoot when doing
single image captures. I know Ron said that there is a lot of noise
and halo effect in the image when using the advanced raw settings
but to be honest with you I saw more of what I think of as halo
effect using Ron's method. I was printing rock in water with a lot
of white spectral highlights which looked better on the print
using Paul's Advanced Raw method.

As far as noise I could not see any in the image but don't really
know what to look for. Paul's style of image actually looks great
to me and Karen as well. And I don't see any more "noise" in
Paul's' style of print over Ron' s style of sharpening. Perhaps
when looking at the seperate channels at 100% mag on the monitor
its much more noticable but not so in my finished Ink Jet prints.

So these two guys Ron and Paul have been guide posts in this
digital world. With out them the learning pace would be much
slower.

Many thanks to both of them for their time and generous advice, the
people of this forum salute both of you for dragging us behind you.

Stephen

--
http://www.livick.com

Ron Reznick · Sep 2, 2001

By the way, Stephen, I'm sending you two crops showing the same scene with AR sharpening set to High and 40%, 5, 0 USM, vs. ARS=None and USM=75,5,4. Take a look at both and you tell me...

Ron

stanton · Sep 2, 2001

Stephen Livick said:
Paul's way or what I was actually doing suggested by him is to
shoot with no in camera sharpening and then set the Advanced Raw
setting in Capture two to HIGH and then use the unsharp masking to
35% to 40% sometimes up to 50% . I go to 50% at times but Paul
stays with 35 to 40%.

If I have bad information, someone please correct me. We're all learning here.

I am of the understanding that unlike D1 NEF's that did not apply any attributes to the images, the D1X will apply whatever sharpening is set in the camera, but will do so through Capture. Therefore, if sharpening is set in the camera, then a "no change" in the Advanced Raw dialog box will apply that sharpening to the image without further adjustment. If sharpening is turned off in the camera, then no sharpening will be applied unless you change this in the Advanced Raw dialog box. Right? If this is so, then you could also turn off sharpening later in the Advanced Raw. Right? In other words, whatever the camera settings, you have the ability to use them or change them after the fact without sacrificing image quality.

My point is simply to clarify that even though Paul turns off sharpening in the camera, it is of no consequence whatsover, because if you use his sharpening method you're probably going to change and have the ability to do so without penalty. Do I understand this correctly?

Frankly I think both methods can work. I've been trying some sharpening tips passed on by Carol Steele, and seems to more closely resemble Paul's method. I have noticed one thing in JPGs that may or may not be applicable here. It seems that because of the 2:1 pixel ratio of the D1x, I find that if I apply at least some in camera sharpening, it seems to allow me to do more with USM in Photoshop. If I try using USM in Photoshop alone, I seem to pick up more artifacts and not get the sharpness that I require. So I ask this: Could it be that we need to allow either the camera or Capture to do at least some of the sharpening to bring the pixel ratio into a more normal mode where it could be sharpened further with USM in Capture or Photoshop?

Just a couple more things to kick around. Thanks for starting the post, Stephen.

Regards,
Stanton

Stephen Livick · Sep 3, 2001

Hello Stanton

stanton said:
I am of the understanding that unlike D1 NEF's that did not apply
any attributes to the images, the D1X will apply whatever
sharpening is set in the camera, but will do so through Capture.
Therefore, if sharpening is set in the camera, then a "no change"
in the Advanced Raw dialog box will apply that sharpening to the
image without further adjustment. If sharpening is turned off in
the camera, then no sharpening will be applied unless you change
this in the Advanced Raw dialog box. Right? If this is so, then you
could also turn off sharpening later in the Advanced Raw. Right?

Stanton that's my understanding of how just it works YES!

In

stanton said:
other words, whatever the camera settings, you have the ability to
use them or change them after the fact without sacrificing image
quality.

That's correct in my playing around with it.

stanton said:
My point is simply to clarify that even though Paul turns off
sharpening in the camera, it is of no consequence whatsover,
because if you use his sharpening method you're probably going to
change and have the ability to do so without penalty. Do I
understand this correctly?

You can have sharpening on or off in the camera it does not matter you have the ability in Capture two to change the setting from none to high.

stanton said:
Frankly I think both methods can work. I've been trying some
sharpening tips passed on by Carol Steele, and seems to more
closely resemble Paul's method. I have noticed one thing in JPGs
that may or may not be applicable here. It seems that because of
the 2:1 pixel ratio of the D1x, I find that if I apply at least
some in camera sharpening, it seems to allow me to do more with
USM in Photoshop. If I try using USM in Photoshop alone, I seem to
pick up more artifacts and not get the sharpness that I require. So
I ask this: Could it be that we need to allow either the camera
or Capture to do at least some of the sharpening to bring the pixel
ratio into a more normal mode where it could be sharpened further
with USM in Capture or Photoshop?

Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2 there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

I bring it into Photoshop and simply clone out distracting spots and then print with out applying any more of Photoshop's USM. No matter if the image looks soft on my monitor it prints out sharp with Paul's method.

However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what I think of it.

The ability of Capture two to change all the in camera sharpening setting is great as it really does not matter if it's set in the camera or not you can simply remove it in Capture two when you wish.

For me its in the final print that counts and which ever method gives me the very best looking print is the method I will use.

Like everything it is possible both methods will work well its up to you to decide the one you like working with.

And it might also depend on the image you use as well, some may take to one method better than the other. Time and testing will tell the story here.

Well back to my testing will report later today just what I find.

Stephen

Uwe Steinmueller · Sep 3, 2001

As Ron pointed out sharpening is more a function of the printer.

Inkjet prints can take much more sharpening than e.g. LightJet (where each dot is full color). Also matte paper is more forgiving than glossy.

Uwe

Ron Reznick said:
I select my sharpening settings so that edge-halo is not noticeable
and background or other gradients maintain their smoothness. If I
am printing to matte, I may increase sharpening a tad, but I always
assume that an image is going to high-gloss when doing the main
processing prior to burning to CD. If I need a different output
later I can either alter that image or re-work the NEF, as needed.

Each person has to make their own decisions as to how to process
their work, and I supply information based on my own guidelines,
which of course are only valid for me -- if you are going to use
the info it's best to just use it as a starting point...

Ron

Stephen Livick said:

Hello Everybody,

I ran some tests today sharpening some D1X images the Paul
Caldwell way and the same image done in the Ron Resnick way. And
both my wife and I picked Pau'ls way as giving the better more
crisp looking and sharper image in the end.

This was on 12x18 inch prints on Epson's archival matt paper using
my Epson 1270 printer.

Paul's way or what I was actually doing suggested by him is to
shoot with no in camera sharpening and then set the Advanced Raw
setting in Capture two to HIGH and then use the unsharp masking to
35% to 40% sometimes up to 50% . I go to 50% at times but Paul
stays with 35 to 40%.

Ron's way is to shoot with no sharpening and only use the
Unsharpmasking to 75% with 5 radius and 4 or 8 threshold.

It was a 125 ISO NEF image of rock in water with lots of bright
highlights in the reflections. Nef is what I shoot when doing
single image captures. I know Ron said that there is a lot of noise
and halo effect in the image when using the advanced raw settings
but to be honest with you I saw more of what I think of as halo
effect using Ron's method. I was printing rock in water with a lot
of white spectral highlights which looked better on the print
using Paul's Advanced Raw method.

As far as noise I could not see any in the image but don't really
know what to look for. Paul's style of image actually looks great
to me and Karen as well. And I don't see any more "noise" in
Paul's' style of print over Ron' s style of sharpening. Perhaps
when looking at the seperate channels at 100% mag on the monitor
its much more noticable but not so in my finished Ink Jet prints.

So these two guys Ron and Paul have been guide posts in this
digital world. With out them the learning pace would be much
slower.

Many thanks to both of them for their time and generous advice, the
people of this forum salute both of you for dragging us behind you.

Stephen

--
http://www.livick.com

Click to expand...

stanton · Sep 3, 2001

Stephen Livick said:
Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2
there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

Based on previous experience with the D1, a week ago I might have argued that sharpening should be turned off and no sharpening applied until just before printing to allow for resizing. Now I'm not so sure.

One thing that I noticed (at least in Photoshop) was that larger file sizes seem to require a higher level of USM than do smaller files to get the optimum level of sharpening. Using both Capture2 and Photoshop, there are any number of methods and operational sequences to resize and sharpen images. If you are printing an image larger than the native size at 300 dpi, then there is a certain amount of interpolation that must occur. What routine do you use to size and sharpen your image so that you can get optimal prints?

In regard to JPGs has anyone tried making the sharpening adjustments in Capture2 rather than in Photoshop?

Stephen Livick said:
However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing
out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what
I think of it.

Stephen- I have a question or two about printing, based on certain assumptions that I know about your setup. I am assuming that you are using a PC (not Mac), with Photoshop editing space set to AdobeRGB. Can I assume your monitor is calibrated and profiled? I also assume that your D1x is set for AdobeRGB. I assume that the prints you are getting are very close to what you see on your monitor in terms of color.

On my PC, printing on my 1280 (essentially the same as your 1270) I am NOT getting anything that looks like my monitor looks. On my Mac, set up with ColorMatchRGB I am having no difficulty getting monitor and prints to match up. So, if you wouldn't mind, would you please instruct me (setup, printer settings, etc) how exactly you make your inkjet prints? I am particularly interested in the settings in your printer dialog box (include advanced settings if applicable, please). As I said, I have had zero luck getting my prints to match up on the PC. I would certainly like to use my PC much more for this type of thing. Yes, both Mac and PC are calibrated and profiled.

Thanks for your help,
Stanton

Ron Reznick · Sep 3, 2001

Stanton, as mentioned, I apply USM during the conversion in Capture. I also apply some USM to the final output print in the editor, depending on what is needed. The D1x images are different than the D1 or pretty much anything else I've messed with in that they need some sharpening during processing no matter what -- and they do seem to hold up when applying additional sharpening later (within reason, of course). Do some experiments, but be subtle. You'll see...

Ron

Stanton said:
Stephen Livick said:

Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2
there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Based on previous experience with the D1, a week ago I might have
argued that sharpening should be turned off and no sharpening
applied until just before printing to allow for resizing. Now I'm
not so sure.

One thing that I noticed (at least in Photoshop) was that larger
file sizes seem to require a higher level of USM than do smaller
files to get the optimum level of sharpening. Using both Capture2
and Photoshop, there are any number of methods and operational
sequences to resize and sharpen images. If you are printing an
image larger than the native size at 300 dpi, then there is a
certain amount of interpolation that must occur. What routine do
you use to size and sharpen your image so that you can get optimal
prints?

In regard to JPGs has anyone tried making the sharpening
adjustments in Capture2 rather than in Photoshop?

stanton said:

However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing
out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what
I think of it.

Click to expand...

Stephen- I have a question or two about printing, based on certain
assumptions that I know about your setup. I am assuming that you
are using a PC (not Mac), with Photoshop editing space set to
AdobeRGB. Can I assume your monitor is calibrated and profiled? I
also assume that your D1x is set for AdobeRGB. I assume that the
prints you are getting are very close to what you see on your
monitor in terms of color.

On my PC, printing on my 1280 (essentially the same as your 1270) I
am NOT getting anything that looks like my monitor looks. On my
Mac, set up with ColorMatchRGB I am having no difficulty getting
monitor and prints to match up. So, if you wouldn't mind, would
you please instruct me (setup, printer settings, etc) how exactly
you make your inkjet prints? I am particularly interested in the
settings in your printer dialog box (include advanced settings if
applicable, please). As I said, I have had zero luck getting my
prints to match up on the PC. I would certainly like to use my PC
much more for this type of thing. Yes, both Mac and PC are
calibrated and profiled.

Thanks for your help,
Stanton

Stephen Livick · Sep 3, 2001

Hello Stanton and Everynoe else

I'll ramble about my findings and perhaps answer your questions while doing so. Yes my monitor is balanced for colour but only with the Adobe colour management set up nothing fancy like a thrid party colour management.

What I see on my screen is what prints out, its very close not perfect but very close. I seldom have to make a second print with the D1x. It don't think it can ever be perfect because of the nature of the illuminated monitor and reflected prints. But when I look at the image on the screen it looks like my print outs. But today I thought the prints looked over sharpened on the monitor at HIGH and 75% unsharp masking...BUT... did not print out like that.

So what I have found is that digital photography tends to be soft in the image. By that I mean things always look like they need to be refocused when I look at them. I like my images crisp and sharp which seems difficult for digital photographs to be. At least the ones I have seen in my local camera stores. They always look unsharp to me.

So to get my sharpness in the image I am now doing this and it works really well in looking at my 12 x18 inch prints. I can shoot for example some tall grass in a field and it looks excellent when printed out.

I shoot Nefs only and use Capture 2, I set the Advanced Raw settings to HIGH sharpening and LESS contrast. I set the Unsharp masking up to 75% with both other settings at 5. Set the size to 18 inches wide in the size dialogue box, let the dpi 334 and other size 11.75 fall where they want to.

My colour is almost always right on as I pay attention to the WB when shooting and the images always look fine not much need for curves as I always pay attention to my lighting when shooting. If the image is not perfectly lit I don't shoot it. However I will shoot in the shade if the lighting is flat and the subject perfectly lit with flat lighting. I know I can boost this in contrast easily enough even with very flat lighting. Thats the secret many people over look...... perfect lighting.

I then send to Photoshop which takes about 20 minutes with my set at 12x18 inch size up. Then I clone out unwanted little bits of "stuff" in the scene there is always some cloning to do. Then I hit print and click "Landscape" if landscape oriented. Set the paper size to A3 and click on properties. In properties I set the paper I am using Heavy weight Matt, but I actually use Epsons Archival Heavy Weight matt paper.

I click "Custom" then "Advanced" and once in there I click 1440 dpi and set the High Quality Halftoning. My Colour managements is set to"Colour Controls" and my gamma is set to 1.8, I also click layout and "Centered" to make sure the image is perfectly centered on the paper

When printed out I have a quite sharp looking 12 x18 inch image that literally is three dimensional in look. Very stunning to look at, breathtaking to anyone considering the speed they take to do.

I can live with them and not feel that thay suffer because they look "soft" like most digital photographis I see out there.

This morning I also tried Ron's approach using up to 100% sharpening set but its just no where near as good as setting the Advanced Raw to High and the Unsharp masking to 75%. I have half a dozen 13x19 inch prints out on the table and both Karen and I pick the same one no thoughts to the contrary. Possibly I must mention different scenes might require slightly less sharpening in the unsharpmasking box. If that is the case I'll go down to 60 or perhaps 50% unsharp masking.

I guess it depends where you have come from my background has been large format 8 x10 work using high definition film , Technical Pan and special developers TD3 to coax every last bit of sharpness and detail out of the film. Those prints are mind blowing in their representation of detail, I am trying to get that same detail in digital where the image jumps off the page at you and you never think it needs sharpening.

So Stanton and everyone else out there, to me its a fine balence between sharpness and tonal reproduction and I think for me this is the way, I am actually very pleased with these 12 x18 inch digital prints and I never thought I would ever be from what other have shown me of their digital work.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

In my mind Capture two is simply great... but slow, however in my thinking good things always do take time to deliver.

Stephen

Stanton said:
Stephen Livick said:

Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2
there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Based on previous experience with the D1, a week ago I might have
argued that sharpening should be turned off and no sharpening
applied until just before printing to allow for resizing. Now I'm
not so sure.

One thing that I noticed (at least in Photoshop) was that larger
file sizes seem to require a higher level of USM than do smaller
files to get the optimum level of sharpening. Using both Capture2
and Photoshop, there are any number of methods and operational
sequences to resize and sharpen images. If you are printing an
image larger than the native size at 300 dpi, then there is a
certain amount of interpolation that must occur. What routine do
you use to size and sharpen your image so that you can get optimal
prints?

In regard to JPGs has anyone tried making the sharpening
adjustments in Capture2 rather than in Photoshop?

stanton said:

However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing
out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what
I think of it.

Click to expand...

Stephen- I have a question or two about printing, based on certain
assumptions that I know about your setup. I am assuming that you
are using a PC (not Mac), with Photoshop editing space set to
AdobeRGB. Can I assume your monitor is calibrated and profiled? I
also assume that your D1x is set for AdobeRGB. I assume that the
prints you are getting are very close to what you see on your
monitor in terms of color.

On my PC, printing on my 1280 (essentially the same as your 1270) I
am NOT getting anything that looks like my monitor looks. On my
Mac, set up with ColorMatchRGB I am having no difficulty getting
monitor and prints to match up. So, if you wouldn't mind, would
you please instruct me (setup, printer settings, etc) how exactly
you make your inkjet prints? I am particularly interested in the
settings in your printer dialog box (include advanced settings if
applicable, please). As I said, I have had zero luck getting my
prints to match up on the PC. I would certainly like to use my PC
much more for this type of thing. Yes, both Mac and PC are
calibrated and profiled.

Thanks for your help,
Stanton

Thom Hogan · Sep 3, 2001

A couple of quick comments to ponder with all the rest...

The Epson 12xx printers have a dot gain on most papers of about 30% (I think it's slightly less on the matte papers, but I haven't been able to pin this down yet). This is somewhat high, and it generally means that you need a lot of sharpening to overcome the ink spread effects. Be careful, though, as the minute you go to some other print processes, the dot gain is nowhere near as high, and your image will look considerably oversharpened.

On the face of it, I really don't like that USM setting of 75, 5, 5. To me, that seems like too little sharpening applied too aggressively. The threshold of 5 means that the sharpening only gets applied to substantive edges, the radius of 5 means that the halo effect is spread quite widely. Now perhaps the dot spread is masking it on your prints, but I've really come to dislike prints with the uneven sharpening effects those settings produce.

The variable that I don't see people talking about is the intersection of sharpening with dpi. The native resolution of the Epson printers is 240 dpi. They seem to have some "sweet spots" above that, though I'm having a hard time pinning down what those are, they seem to vary with sharpening, paper, ink, and image type (gee, only four variables?).

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Stephen Livick said:
I'll ramble about my findings and perhaps answer your questions
while doing so. Yes my monitor is balanced for colour but only with
the Adobe colour management set up nothing fancy like a thrid party
colour management.

What I see on my screen is what prints out, its very close not
perfect but very close. I seldom have to make a second print with
the D1x. It don't think it can ever be perfect because of the
nature of the illuminated monitor and reflected prints. But when I
look at the image on the screen it looks like my print outs. But
today I thought the prints looked over sharpened on the monitor at
HIGH and 75% unsharp masking...BUT... did not print out like that.

So what I have found is that digital photography tends to be soft
in the image. By that I mean things always look like they need to
be refocused when I look at them. I like my images crisp and
sharp which seems difficult for digital photographs to be. At least
the ones I have seen in my local camera stores. They always look
unsharp to me.

So to get my sharpness in the image I am now doing this and it
works really well in looking at my 12 x18 inch prints. I can shoot
for example some tall grass in a field and it looks excellent when
printed out.

I shoot Nefs only and use Capture 2, I set the Advanced Raw
settings to HIGH sharpening and LESS contrast. I set the Unsharp
masking up to 75% with both other settings at 5. Set the size to 18
inches wide in the size dialogue box, let the dpi 334 and other
size 11.75 fall where they want to.

My colour is almost always right on as I pay attention to the WB
when shooting and the images always look fine not much need for
curves as I always pay attention to my lighting when shooting. If
the image is not perfectly lit I don't shoot it. However I will
shoot in the shade if the lighting is flat and the subject
perfectly lit with flat lighting. I know I can boost this in
contrast easily enough even with very flat lighting. Thats the
secret many people over look...... perfect lighting.

I then send to Photoshop which takes about 20 minutes with my set
at 12x18 inch size up. Then I clone out unwanted little bits of
"stuff" in the scene there is always some cloning to do. Then I hit
print and click "Landscape" if landscape oriented. Set the paper
size to A3 and click on properties. In properties I set the paper
I am using Heavy weight Matt, but I actually use Epsons Archival
Heavy Weight matt paper.

I click "Custom" then "Advanced" and once in there I click 1440 dpi
and set the High Quality Halftoning. My Colour managements is set
to"Colour Controls" and my gamma is set to 1.8, I also click
layout and "Centered" to make sure the image is perfectly centered
on the paper

When printed out I have a quite sharp looking 12 x18 inch image
that literally is three dimensional in look. Very stunning to look
at, breathtaking to anyone considering the speed they take to do.

I can live with them and not feel that thay suffer because they
look "soft" like most digital photographis I see out there.

This morning I also tried Ron's approach using up to 100%
sharpening set but its just no where near as good as setting the
Advanced Raw to High and the Unsharp masking to 75%. I have half a
dozen 13x19 inch prints out on the table and both Karen and I pick
the same one no thoughts to the contrary. Possibly I must mention
different scenes might require slightly less sharpening in the
unsharpmasking box. If that is the case I'll go down to 60 or
perhaps 50% unsharp masking.

I guess it depends where you have come from my background has been
large format 8 x10 work using high definition film , Technical Pan
and special developers TD3 to coax every last bit of sharpness and
detail out of the film. Those prints are mind blowing in their
representation of detail, I am trying to get that same detail in
digital where the image jumps off the page at you and you never
think it needs sharpening.

So Stanton and everyone else out there, to me its a fine balence
between sharpness and tonal reproduction and I think for me this is
the way, I am actually very pleased with these 12 x18 inch digital
prints and I never thought I would ever be from what other have
shown me of their digital work.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

In my mind Capture two is simply great... but slow, however in my
thinking good things always do take time to deliver.

Stephen

Stanton said:

Stephen Livick said:

Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2
there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Based on previous experience with the D1, a week ago I might have
argued that sharpening should be turned off and no sharpening
applied until just before printing to allow for resizing. Now I'm
not so sure.

One thing that I noticed (at least in Photoshop) was that larger
file sizes seem to require a higher level of USM than do smaller
files to get the optimum level of sharpening. Using both Capture2
and Photoshop, there are any number of methods and operational
sequences to resize and sharpen images. If you are printing an
image larger than the native size at 300 dpi, then there is a
certain amount of interpolation that must occur. What routine do
you use to size and sharpen your image so that you can get optimal
prints?

In regard to JPGs has anyone tried making the sharpening
adjustments in Capture2 rather than in Photoshop?

Stephen Livick said:

However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing
out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what
I think of it.

Click to expand...

Stephen- I have a question or two about printing, based on certain
assumptions that I know about your setup. I am assuming that you
are using a PC (not Mac), with Photoshop editing space set to
AdobeRGB. Can I assume your monitor is calibrated and profiled? I
also assume that your D1x is set for AdobeRGB. I assume that the
prints you are getting are very close to what you see on your
monitor in terms of color.

On my PC, printing on my 1280 (essentially the same as your 1270) I
am NOT getting anything that looks like my monitor looks. On my
Mac, set up with ColorMatchRGB I am having no difficulty getting
monitor and prints to match up. So, if you wouldn't mind, would
you please instruct me (setup, printer settings, etc) how exactly
you make your inkjet prints? I am particularly interested in the
settings in your printer dialog box (include advanced settings if
applicable, please). As I said, I have had zero luck getting my
prints to match up on the PC. I would certainly like to use my PC
much more for this type of thing. Yes, both Mac and PC are
calibrated and profiled.

Thanks for your help,
Stanton

Click to expand...

Stephen Livick · Sep 4, 2001

Hello Thom

Not being a fully computer literate person I simply try to produce the best looking print no matter how its produced. I might possibly be missing something but I can tell the prints look great to me. What we really need is some print standards to look at in person. Perhaps if I saw some body elses prints as a comparison my tune might be different.

I tend to run a pile of tests and select the best of the prints. Its something I have always done Thom, if I had of fowwowed all the books out in print on gum printing I would have never been able to gum print at the level I do. The errors in them are.. well enough said. And they repeat from book to book as the authors crib from one another instead of actually ever mastering the gum process and then doing a book.

Sometimes its best to not know everrything things so you are free to do the work most computer literate people never would because they think you shouldn't.

I know Epson only prints at 240 but in testing from 72 to 600 dpi set on the dpi box, 300 comes out looking best, so why not use that setting I ask myself.

I know that the Capture 2 with the Advanced Raw set to High and Less Contrast set to counteract the high sharpening of 75% I am suggesting goes against the grain of most people, but my prints tell me its best on my 1270 using Epsons Archival Matt paper.

Everyone is different and what I do is get the best looking prints regardless of what I have to do to make them.

I push the bounderies always in search for the best I can get form the particular equipment I am working with.

And make no mistake I am super critical when it comes to print quality, after all I spent 25 years tweaking my 8 x 10 Deardorff negatives and then prints with custom developers to get the very best out of them.

We all must find what we are most happy with , in my case its sharp digital imagery which I now have to a degree. Not as sharp as film based was but acceptable to me.

Personaly I don't think anyone would reject my prints if they saw them just because I played wierdly with the settings to get a printing quality I liked.

I can't see any noise or artifacts or halos in them just images that are very three dimensional and lift off the page to your eyes effortlessly. They draw you in because of the sharpness, you want to marvel more, at every little bit of detail.

Stephen

PS: received several "let me tell you" emails as well about my sharpening suggestions this morning as well.

Thom Hogan said:
The Epson 12xx printers have a dot gain on most papers of about

30% (I think it's slightly less on the matte papers, but I haven't
been able to pin this down yet). This is somewhat high, and it
generally means that you need a lot of sharpening to overcome the
ink spread effects. Be careful, though, as the minute you go to
some other print processes, the dot gain is nowhere near as high,
and your image will look considerably oversharpened.

On the face of it, I really don't like that USM setting of 75, 5,

5. To me, that seems like too little sharpening applied too
aggressively. The threshold of 5 means that the sharpening only
gets applied to substantive edges, the radius of 5 means that the
halo effect is spread quite widely. Now perhaps the dot spread is
masking it on your prints, but I've really come to dislike prints
with the uneven sharpening effects those settings produce.

The variable that I don't see people talking about is the

intersection of sharpening with dpi. The native resolution of the
Epson printers is 240 dpi. They seem to have some "sweet spots"
above that, though I'm having a hard time pinning down what those
are, they seem to vary with sharpening, paper, ink, and image type
(gee, only four variables?).

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Stephen Livick said:

I'll ramble about my findings and perhaps answer your questions
while doing so. Yes my monitor is balanced for colour but only with
the Adobe colour management set up nothing fancy like a thrid party
colour management.

What I see on my screen is what prints out, its very close not
perfect but very close. I seldom have to make a second print with
the D1x. It don't think it can ever be perfect because of the
nature of the illuminated monitor and reflected prints. But when I
look at the image on the screen it looks like my print outs. But
today I thought the prints looked over sharpened on the monitor at
HIGH and 75% unsharp masking...BUT... did not print out like that.

So what I have found is that digital photography tends to be soft
in the image. By that I mean things always look like they need to
be refocused when I look at them. I like my images crisp and
sharp which seems difficult for digital photographs to be. At least
the ones I have seen in my local camera stores. They always look
unsharp to me.

So to get my sharpness in the image I am now doing this and it
works really well in looking at my 12 x18 inch prints. I can shoot
for example some tall grass in a field and it looks excellent when
printed out.

I shoot Nefs only and use Capture 2, I set the Advanced Raw
settings to HIGH sharpening and LESS contrast. I set the Unsharp
masking up to 75% with both other settings at 5. Set the size to 18
inches wide in the size dialogue box, let the dpi 334 and other
size 11.75 fall where they want to.

My colour is almost always right on as I pay attention to the WB
when shooting and the images always look fine not much need for
curves as I always pay attention to my lighting when shooting. If
the image is not perfectly lit I don't shoot it. However I will
shoot in the shade if the lighting is flat and the subject
perfectly lit with flat lighting. I know I can boost this in
contrast easily enough even with very flat lighting. Thats the
secret many people over look...... perfect lighting.

I then send to Photoshop which takes about 20 minutes with my set
at 12x18 inch size up. Then I clone out unwanted little bits of
"stuff" in the scene there is always some cloning to do. Then I hit
print and click "Landscape" if landscape oriented. Set the paper
size to A3 and click on properties. In properties I set the paper
I am using Heavy weight Matt, but I actually use Epsons Archival
Heavy Weight matt paper.

I click "Custom" then "Advanced" and once in there I click 1440 dpi
and set the High Quality Halftoning. My Colour managements is set
to"Colour Controls" and my gamma is set to 1.8, I also click
layout and "Centered" to make sure the image is perfectly centered
on the paper

When printed out I have a quite sharp looking 12 x18 inch image
that literally is three dimensional in look. Very stunning to look
at, breathtaking to anyone considering the speed they take to do.

I can live with them and not feel that thay suffer because they
look "soft" like most digital photographis I see out there.

This morning I also tried Ron's approach using up to 100%
sharpening set but its just no where near as good as setting the
Advanced Raw to High and the Unsharp masking to 75%. I have half a
dozen 13x19 inch prints out on the table and both Karen and I pick
the same one no thoughts to the contrary. Possibly I must mention
different scenes might require slightly less sharpening in the
unsharpmasking box. If that is the case I'll go down to 60 or
perhaps 50% unsharp masking.

I guess it depends where you have come from my background has been
large format 8 x10 work using high definition film , Technical Pan
and special developers TD3 to coax every last bit of sharpness and
detail out of the film. Those prints are mind blowing in their
representation of detail, I am trying to get that same detail in
digital where the image jumps off the page at you and you never
think it needs sharpening.

So Stanton and everyone else out there, to me its a fine balence
between sharpness and tonal reproduction and I think for me this is
the way, I am actually very pleased with these 12 x18 inch digital
prints and I never thought I would ever be from what other have
shown me of their digital work.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

In my mind Capture two is simply great... but slow, however in my
thinking good things always do take time to deliver.

Stephen

Stanton said:

Stephen Livick said:

Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2
there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Based on previous experience with the D1, a week ago I might have
argued that sharpening should be turned off and no sharpening
applied until just before printing to allow for resizing. Now I'm
not so sure.

One thing that I noticed (at least in Photoshop) was that larger
file sizes seem to require a higher level of USM than do smaller
files to get the optimum level of sharpening. Using both Capture2
and Photoshop, there are any number of methods and operational
sequences to resize and sharpen images. If you are printing an
image larger than the native size at 300 dpi, then there is a
certain amount of interpolation that must occur. What routine do
you use to size and sharpen your image so that you can get optimal
prints?

In regard to JPGs has anyone tried making the sharpening
adjustments in Capture2 rather than in Photoshop?

Thom Hogan said:

However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing
out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what
I think of it.

Click to expand...

Stephen- I have a question or two about printing, based on certain
assumptions that I know about your setup. I am assuming that you
are using a PC (not Mac), with Photoshop editing space set to
AdobeRGB. Can I assume your monitor is calibrated and profiled? I
also assume that your D1x is set for AdobeRGB. I assume that the
prints you are getting are very close to what you see on your
monitor in terms of color.

On my PC, printing on my 1280 (essentially the same as your 1270) I
am NOT getting anything that looks like my monitor looks. On my
Mac, set up with ColorMatchRGB I am having no difficulty getting
monitor and prints to match up. So, if you wouldn't mind, would
you please instruct me (setup, printer settings, etc) how exactly
you make your inkjet prints? I am particularly interested in the
settings in your printer dialog box (include advanced settings if
applicable, please). As I said, I have had zero luck getting my
prints to match up on the PC. I would certainly like to use my PC
much more for this type of thing. Yes, both Mac and PC are
calibrated and profiled.

Thanks for your help,
Stanton

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ron Reznick · Sep 4, 2001

Thom, I try to maintain a natural look to the image when doing the primary processing. Leaving the radius at 5% avoids oversharpening to my eyes. Setting the threshold to 4-8 levels (depending on ISO, occasionally 12 levels) keeps the noise from being sharpened, and I set the percentage as needed. When printing, I do tend to either reprocess the NEF or make additional adjustments to the Capture-processed file. The settings I have listed are what I use to do the initial-processing job, and it yields far better results than anything that is done by in-camera sharpening or Advanced RAW dialog adjustments.

To each their own way. Whatever makes the images look right is the proper method.

Ron

Thom Hogan said:
The Epson 12xx printers have a dot gain on most papers of about

30% (I think it's slightly less on the matte papers, but I haven't
been able to pin this down yet). This is somewhat high, and it
generally means that you need a lot of sharpening to overcome the
ink spread effects. Be careful, though, as the minute you go to
some other print processes, the dot gain is nowhere near as high,
and your image will look considerably oversharpened.

On the face of it, I really don't like that USM setting of 75, 5,

5. To me, that seems like too little sharpening applied too
aggressively. The threshold of 5 means that the sharpening only
gets applied to substantive edges, the radius of 5 means that the
halo effect is spread quite widely. Now perhaps the dot spread is
masking it on your prints, but I've really come to dislike prints
with the uneven sharpening effects those settings produce.

The variable that I don't see people talking about is the

intersection of sharpening with dpi. The native resolution of the
Epson printers is 240 dpi. They seem to have some "sweet spots"
above that, though I'm having a hard time pinning down what those
are, they seem to vary with sharpening, paper, ink, and image type
(gee, only four variables?).

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Stephen Livick said:

I'll ramble about my findings and perhaps answer your questions
while doing so. Yes my monitor is balanced for colour but only with
the Adobe colour management set up nothing fancy like a thrid party
colour management.

What I see on my screen is what prints out, its very close not
perfect but very close. I seldom have to make a second print with
the D1x. It don't think it can ever be perfect because of the
nature of the illuminated monitor and reflected prints. But when I
look at the image on the screen it looks like my print outs. But
today I thought the prints looked over sharpened on the monitor at
HIGH and 75% unsharp masking...BUT... did not print out like that.

So what I have found is that digital photography tends to be soft
in the image. By that I mean things always look like they need to
be refocused when I look at them. I like my images crisp and
sharp which seems difficult for digital photographs to be. At least
the ones I have seen in my local camera stores. They always look
unsharp to me.

So to get my sharpness in the image I am now doing this and it
works really well in looking at my 12 x18 inch prints. I can shoot
for example some tall grass in a field and it looks excellent when
printed out.

I shoot Nefs only and use Capture 2, I set the Advanced Raw
settings to HIGH sharpening and LESS contrast. I set the Unsharp
masking up to 75% with both other settings at 5. Set the size to 18
inches wide in the size dialogue box, let the dpi 334 and other
size 11.75 fall where they want to.

My colour is almost always right on as I pay attention to the WB
when shooting and the images always look fine not much need for
curves as I always pay attention to my lighting when shooting. If
the image is not perfectly lit I don't shoot it. However I will
shoot in the shade if the lighting is flat and the subject
perfectly lit with flat lighting. I know I can boost this in
contrast easily enough even with very flat lighting. Thats the
secret many people over look...... perfect lighting.

I then send to Photoshop which takes about 20 minutes with my set
at 12x18 inch size up. Then I clone out unwanted little bits of
"stuff" in the scene there is always some cloning to do. Then I hit
print and click "Landscape" if landscape oriented. Set the paper
size to A3 and click on properties. In properties I set the paper
I am using Heavy weight Matt, but I actually use Epsons Archival
Heavy Weight matt paper.

I click "Custom" then "Advanced" and once in there I click 1440 dpi
and set the High Quality Halftoning. My Colour managements is set
to"Colour Controls" and my gamma is set to 1.8, I also click
layout and "Centered" to make sure the image is perfectly centered
on the paper

When printed out I have a quite sharp looking 12 x18 inch image
that literally is three dimensional in look. Very stunning to look
at, breathtaking to anyone considering the speed they take to do.

I can live with them and not feel that thay suffer because they
look "soft" like most digital photographis I see out there.

This morning I also tried Ron's approach using up to 100%
sharpening set but its just no where near as good as setting the
Advanced Raw to High and the Unsharp masking to 75%. I have half a
dozen 13x19 inch prints out on the table and both Karen and I pick
the same one no thoughts to the contrary. Possibly I must mention
different scenes might require slightly less sharpening in the
unsharpmasking box. If that is the case I'll go down to 60 or
perhaps 50% unsharp masking.

I guess it depends where you have come from my background has been
large format 8 x10 work using high definition film , Technical Pan
and special developers TD3 to coax every last bit of sharpness and
detail out of the film. Those prints are mind blowing in their
representation of detail, I am trying to get that same detail in
digital where the image jumps off the page at you and you never
think it needs sharpening.

So Stanton and everyone else out there, to me its a fine balence
between sharpness and tonal reproduction and I think for me this is
the way, I am actually very pleased with these 12 x18 inch digital
prints and I never thought I would ever be from what other have
shown me of their digital work.

Hope this answers some of your questions.

In my mind Capture two is simply great... but slow, however in my
thinking good things always do take time to deliver.

Stephen

Stanton said:

Stephen Livick said:

Stanton I find for prints from my NEF files if you use Capture 2
there is no need for further sharpening in Photoshop.

Click to expand...

Based on previous experience with the D1, a week ago I might have
argued that sharpening should be turned off and no sharpening
applied until just before printing to allow for resizing. Now I'm
not so sure.

One thing that I noticed (at least in Photoshop) was that larger
file sizes seem to require a higher level of USM than do smaller
files to get the optimum level of sharpening. Using both Capture2
and Photoshop, there are any number of methods and operational
sequences to resize and sharpen images. If you are printing an
image larger than the native size at 300 dpi, then there is a
certain amount of interpolation that must occur. What routine do
you use to size and sharpen your image so that you can get optimal
prints?

In regard to JPGs has anyone tried making the sharpening
adjustments in Capture2 rather than in Photoshop?

Thom Hogan said:

However I am going to try using much higher USM today for printing
out on Archival Matt Paper with Ron's suggested method to see what
I think of it.

Click to expand...

Stephen- I have a question or two about printing, based on certain
assumptions that I know about your setup. I am assuming that you
are using a PC (not Mac), with Photoshop editing space set to
AdobeRGB. Can I assume your monitor is calibrated and profiled? I
also assume that your D1x is set for AdobeRGB. I assume that the
prints you are getting are very close to what you see on your
monitor in terms of color.

On my PC, printing on my 1280 (essentially the same as your 1270) I
am NOT getting anything that looks like my monitor looks. On my
Mac, set up with ColorMatchRGB I am having no difficulty getting
monitor and prints to match up. So, if you wouldn't mind, would
you please instruct me (setup, printer settings, etc) how exactly
you make your inkjet prints? I am particularly interested in the
settings in your printer dialog box (include advanced settings if
applicable, please). As I said, I have had zero luck getting my
prints to match up on the PC. I would certainly like to use my PC
much more for this type of thing. Yes, both Mac and PC are
calibrated and profiled.

Thanks for your help,
Stanton

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thom Hogan · Sep 4, 2001

Stephen:

No need to be defensive. I apologize if you think that I was attacking you. I wasn't.

You're doing exactly as I would. Even between identical model printers I've seen slight differences in how they print, and I didn't like the way my 1270 printed until I put it in a "vise" to keep secondary vibrations from getting into the print. And ink and paper used will absolutely change the amount you need to sharpen. The proof is ALWAYS in the print. And the only way to perfect that is to experiment, as you have.

If 300 dpi works for you (and it does for me, too, though I've noticed a couple of other sweet spots), use it. My comment about 75% levels was on the Photoshop USM suggestion someone else had, not on your use of that amount in Capture, BTW.

Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide
author, Nikon Flash Guide
author, Complete Guide to the Nikon D1, D1h, & D1x
http://www.bythom.com

Stephen Livick · Oct 4, 2001

Hello Everybody,

If any one is interested, this is how I do my unsharp masking which goes against everybody elses grain and digital mainstream thinking.

I am only interested in prints that I can see on the table before me and not in looking at a 100% or 200% or 300% enlargement on my monitor. To me that's completely meaningless.

It's the final print out infront of you that matters the most as that is what I show the world. I don't sell digital files to anyone, I sell my signed editioned prints.

So I want super sharp very well exposed digital prints from my Epson ink jet printer. And they are, and to my eyes and many years of photographic experience looking at prints they look simply incrediable. Well at least I am always amazed.

So this is what I do.....

I use Capture two and set the size to 18 inches wide and leave the DPI as to what Capture povides 334. Then I set the Advanced Raw Sharpen setting to High, I set the Tone setting to low and then set the unsharp masking to 75% and the two other settings to 5. By setting the tone to low you compensate for the high sharpenning effect.

I very seldom if ever use the curves as my images are always perfect coming from the D1x. Perfect because of the strick rules of image capture I follow closely. I send to photoshop using the icon at the top of Capture and don't touch it there except for the usual cloning of some "spots" I wish removed.

This gives me very sharp images on my Epson 1270 printer.

Now remember my shots are always perfectly lit and properly exposed in matrix metering using the Program mode. I find it gives me the safest images never blowing out my highlights, which is easy on the D1x. I also rotate the command dial selecting the apature I wish to work with in Program.

Program with the D1x is my "safe mode" when I want the image to turn out perfectly. I have tried Apature and Shutter on and off and find not all of my images are useable in those modes. Where as with the Program mode ( shift Apature to suit) every image is perfectly exposed and always useable never ever any blown highlights.

My 12x18 inch image area is on a sheet of 13x19 inch paper using Epson's Archival matt paper and are breathtaking, everyone I show them too is completely bowled over to learn they are D1x digital prints.

I never look at the image at 100 or 200% on my montior I only look at what I consider the most important aspect in this Digital process, the actual prints coming from my printer and adjust to the output of that particular printer.

Various printers may need some image tweaking however this works best for my Epson 1270 using Epson's Heavy Weight Archival Matt paper. Results are simply fantastic to my eyes. Would love to try the Kodak 760 for a comparison but I am quite happy with thr D1x untill I see better. Or sombody shows me a better method of working which generates better looking prints for me, which is always possible.

I know it's a crazy move to a digital experts out there, but I started my career miles removed from mainstream photography, I see no reason to join the fold after travelling for close to 40 years down my own path.

Remember this is only one way to do things, I am sure there are many others out there including conventional digital methods which are jequally valid!

Go with what works best for you, that's all I am doing.

Stephen

http://www.livick.com

Stephen Livick · Oct 4, 2001

Hello Eveybody.

Apologies for double posting a typical unconventional mistake ; )

Stephen

Search

Capture 2 Sharpening??

Stephen Livick

Senior Member

Ron Reznick

Guest

Ron Reznick

Guest

stanton

Senior Member

Stephen Livick

Senior Member

Uwe Steinmueller

Guest

stanton

Senior Member

Ron Reznick

Guest

Stephen Livick

Senior Member

Thom Hogan

Forum Pro

Stephen Livick

Senior Member

Ron Reznick

Guest

Thom Hogan

Forum Pro

Stephen Livick

Senior Member

Stephen Livick

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts