Reading mode: Light Dark

Sharpening comparison

Go to last post
areidjr

areidjr

Veteran Member
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
19
Location
Pittsburgh, US
I think Ben's might have the edge Al
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
I'm not on a great monitor - but I can't see any difference between the two methods. But I am impressed with the improvement from the unsharpened RAW file. I need to go home and start trying these methods. Thanks, guys!

Lon
 
Just for reference Al I'm on a Dell 24" and can clearly see the difference.
Not huge, I'd say 5% sharper than your current method.

I'm seeing the main improvement round the eye and the breast/shoulder wing feathers
Great image to test this on Al.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
I just tried both methods on a resized general architectural shot with some detailed foliage and it would be hard to distinguish between the two results. (23-inch iMac monitor). In your own comparison the Luzart method looks a tad 'more' sharpened on my monitor but that doesn't mean it's better.

It's often tempting to oversharpen IMHO, particularly with a resized 800 pixel image.
--
tim
 
my 2 cents.

Ben's seems sharper, but I prefer yours. To my eyes, the leaf in front has better color and "soft" detail with your method, where in Ben's method it looks flattened and blending into the background.

--
Allen

still scratching and saving for that K20D
 
I think the results are similar enough that the differences may not make it though the printing step. You never know what you might get with a different image though.

For giggles I tried it with the approach I mentioned in the other discussion of using an L channel mask on a very high USM filter. I used 500, 1,8 in the USM, and blended both the USM and HIRALOAM to 75%. With the L mask it looks essentially the same as the others tried today. Just shows how many ways there are to get from one place to another I guess.

 
ozdean said:
Just for reference Al I'm on a Dell 24" and can clearly see the
difference.
Not huge, I'd say 5% sharper than your current method.
I'm seeing the main improvement round the eye and the
breast/shoulder wing feathers
Great image to test this on Al.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
Click to expand...
I assume that's a wide screen LCD. How do you like it? I've been considering something like that to replace my 7 year old DELL 19" Trinitron CRT. The monitor is beginning to get a little quirky.

I see the same improvements as you do.
--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid

 
timo said:
I just tried both methods on a resized general architectural shot
with some detailed foliage and it would be hard to distinguish
between the two results. (23-inch iMac monitor). In your own
comparison the Luzart method looks a tad 'more' sharpened on my
monitor but that doesn't mean it's better.

It's often tempting to oversharpen IMHO, particularly with a resized
800 pixel image.
--
tim
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the LuzArt method is a bit sharper. I also have been trying to avoid the urge to oversharpen. That's part of the reason I decided to make this post. So far no one has stated that eithe are over sharpened, however.

--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid

 
shadowulf said:
my 2 cents.

Ben's seems sharper, but I prefer yours. To my eyes, the leaf in
front has better color and "soft" detail with your method, where in
Ben's method it looks flattened and blending into the background.

--
Allen

still scratching and saving for that K20D
Click to expand...
Thanks for the feedback, Allen. I agree that Ben's is sharper. I've been accused of oversharpening in the past and have cut back a tad to try to avoid that criticism.

--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid

 
Kevin OReilly said:
I think the results are similar enough that the differences may not
make it though the printing step. You never know what you might get
with a different image though.

For giggles I tried it with the approach I mentioned in the other
discussion of using an L channel mask on a very high USM filter. I
used 500, 1,8 in the USM, and blended both the USM and HIRALOAM to
75%. With the L mask it looks essentially the same as the others
tried today. Just shows how many ways there are to get from one place
to another I guess.

Click to expand...
There are subtle difference apparent in each approach and I'm having a hard time deciding which one I like the best. At a quick glance there doesn't seem to be a drastic difference in any of them.
--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid

 
Yes I do like this Monitor Al - very sharp. The colour renders a little differently to the Sony crt I had but I have not calibrated it properly as yet. Blacks seem to be very strong at the moment but I am being presumptuous in my judgement.

Just looked back at the shots again and I must say there is wonderful detail in Ben's method but I confess with a shot like this that has detail I do like to see it.
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
Just to give you a gauge as to what I'm seeing here Al
Ben's 100% - not oversharpened IMO Just Right.
Al 95%
Kev 90%
Raw 75%
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
 
ozdean said:
Just to give you a gauge as to what I'm seeing here Al
Ben's 100% - not oversharpened IMO Just Right.
Al 95%
Kev 90%
Raw 75%
--
Regards Dean - Capturing Creation
Click to expand...
Interesting, Dean. I see you edited the Raw rating. Since I now have actions for all three methods, I can use which ever looks best for the given photo.

Thanks again for all of the feedback.
--
Al

My Photo Gallery: http://photoweb.reid-home.com
Pentax Photo Gallery: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/albertreid

 
I usually do a 500/0,2
and then a 15/35 (% varies from 10 to 25).

It's really quick and I think it could compare to your results. Try it ! (and post your result to see if it works)

--
Jocelyn

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top