What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Started Oct 21, 2006 | Discussions
michaelbs Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

I have done some experimenting (PS CS2) to reduce the huge 5D files to web and apply the appropriate amount of sharpening. I haven't found the best compromise.

I lose color and have jpg artifacts/noise. The pics you guys post here show no sign of that. The resize step makes the pics a bit fluffy and sharpening applies some artifacts.¨

So I want to ask what YOUR resize/sharpen settings and workflow are.

I shoot raw and pp and save to tiff. No problems. It's the last 2 steps: resize to web and sharpen that deteriorate image quality too much.

I like to use the Image Processor from Bridge but in terms of resizing and sharpen action it's no good.

What do YOU do?

Thanks
Michael

K.Y.Lee Contributing Member • Posts: 680
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Tiff to 8 bit/Image size/75ppi/800 pix width/bicubic smoother/USM 100/.3/0
--
http://www.pbase.com/kylee

Ben_Egbert Forum Pro • Posts: 20,228
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

I don't have a 5D, but I follow the method suggested by Fraser and Blatner in the book, Photoshop CS2". They suggest that when you are reducing size, to use bicubic sharper, and when uprezing, to use bucubic smoother.

See page 116, smoother is designed for upsampling, and sharper is designed for downsizing.

I used to use staircase, resizing, but it is not required in CS2. I don't use special sharpening for any size, I sharpen then resize.

By the way, you can uprez when you open the file. There is a size box in the lower left corner where you can check various uprez sizes. I find this provides the best final image when I need to uprez to 16x24 print sizes.

-- hide signature --
 Ben_Egbert's gear list:Ben_Egbert's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC +1 more
Melanie Kipp Forum Pro • Posts: 11,079
I suspect

that your color change has to do with your "not" changing the color profile to sRGB ( which will look better on the web ).

Here's an old page I created when I shot with a 10D. Much of the workflow for the 5D is the same, with some little minor tweaks ) but the page will hopefully get you started in the right direction....

http://www.caughtintimephotography.com/10D_WorkFlow.html

-- hide signature --

The 5D was made in heaven - Canon is just the sub-contractor!

http://www.caughtintimephotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/melaniekipp

Rock Lee Senior Member • Posts: 1,515
Best process IMHO:

http://news.deviantart.com/article/20250/

-- hide signature --

Pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/robotzer0

Comments are welcomed.

Jared-5 Senior Member • Posts: 1,136
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Interesting thread. Tag

michaelbs wrote:

I have done some experimenting (PS CS2) to reduce the huge 5D files
to web and apply the appropriate amount of sharpening. I haven't
found the best compromise.
I lose color and have jpg artifacts/noise. The pics you guys post
here show no sign of that. The resize step makes the pics a bit
fluffy and sharpening applies some artifacts.¨

So I want to ask what YOUR resize/sharpen settings and workflow are.

I shoot raw and pp and save to tiff. No problems. It's the last 2
steps: resize to web and sharpen that deteriorate image quality too
much.

I like to use the Image Processor from Bridge but in terms of
resizing and sharpen action it's no good.

What do YOU do?

Thanks
Michael

-- hide signature --

  • Jared -

OP michaelbs Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Ben_Egbert wrote:
I sharpen then resize.

Ben

That sounds very wrong to me.

When you downsize the huge 5D tiff files to web size you lose sharpness. Pictures get flufffy when you throw away that much information.

Michael

KevinDufff Veteran Member • Posts: 4,088
Try this, take all the pain away, link........

http://www.idimager.nl/English/Other/FreeWare.htm
--

Twelve good reasons to get out of bed early in the morning.

Earthlight
Earthlight Veteran Member • Posts: 3,215
My thoughts exactly

You might want to make sure whether this is the case (in case your files are aRGB to start with).

Earthlight

Melanie Kipp wrote:

that your color change has to do with your "not" changing the color
profile to sRGB ( which will look better on the web ).

-- hide signature --

Mostly harmless

Ben_Egbert Forum Pro • Posts: 20,228
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

michaelbs wrote:

Ben_Egbert wrote:
I sharpen then resize.

Ben

That sounds very wrong to me.
When you downsize the huge 5D tiff files to web size you lose
sharpness. Pictures get flufffy when you throw away that much
information.

You could be right, I don't work for the web, I work for prints. But my gallery was prepared this way, however only from a 20D, so I don't know the effect from a larger file.

No matter, there was a major change in downsampling with the release of CS2, my old stair interalation action no longer worked, or was needed.

I am planning to rebuild my gallery at full size. Probably just 10% of the current images. Viewers will then be able to choose the size they wish to view. But I am not going to get into the buisness of preparing special files just for web viewing.

Michael

-- hide signature --
 Ben_Egbert's gear list:Ben_Egbert's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 16-35mm F2.8L II USM Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC +1 more
OP michaelbs Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

K.Y.Lee wrote:

Tiff to 8 bit/Image size/75ppi/800 pix width/bicubic smoother/USM
100/.3/0
--
http://www.pbase.com/kylee

Yes but how do you manage a whole bunch of tiff images that need to be downsized and sharpened for web. The fact that some are portrait oriented and some horizontal makes it awkward to use the image-size box.
(or is it me?)
The images need to be constrained within proportions eg 1200*800 pixels.

This can be done with the File/Automat/Fit image but here you can't choose bicubic smoother.
How do I solve this batch problem?

Michael

Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Automate w/ actions

Yes but how do you manage a whole bunch of tiff images that need to
be downsized and sharpened for web. The fact that some are portrait
oriented and some horizontal makes it awkward to use the image-size
box.

Set the height only, and let it decide the width for you.

It sounds like you want to batch process, and that's exactly what actions are for. Set up something that resizes to XXXx600 or something like that, then applies unsharp masking at 120 % for 0.2 pixels. The portrait orientation pics will be pretty skinny, but that works for the web.

OP michaelbs Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
Re: My thoughts exactly

Earthlight wrote:

You might want to make sure whether this is the case (in case your
files are aRGB to start with).

Earthlight

No. I have the Adobe Bridge Image Processor automatically convert to sRGB when I downsize.

I think the problem is most evident when I downsize from Adobe Bridge Image Processor.
--
best regards
Michael
http://michaelbennati.dk/galleri/

PIXSurgeon Veteran Member • Posts: 4,009
Here's your definitive answer (and samples)...

When you go from sizes such as 3504x2336 to, say, 900x600 or 1200x800, the level of sharpness present on the FULL-size image is CRITICAL, for ensuring maximum detail preservation when dowsampling in one single "stroke", which is what I like.

Examples, here:

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/denver

So, the basic steps are:

1. Sharpen the ORIGINAL image to a decent level, enough for seeing some detail at 100%-size on your CRT/LCD.

2. Reduce your image with Photoshop's bi-cubic (normal), with NO EXTRA sharpening selected for the downsampling routine.

3. Once the image is at your desired size, you will need to STUDY, CAREFULLY, what range of spatial frequencies you will need to boost, and accordingly perform an USM stroke targeting the desired range. Examples:

a. USM (75%-100%,0.3.,0) will typically produce a slightly thicker, deeper detail boost.

b. USM (200%-250%,0.2,0) will produce a precise boost of FINELY-grained detail.

Your choice of sharpening method will be invariably related to the actual level (and type) of detail (and spatial response) of the original image, as it occurs on its original 100% size.

Please, experiment until you reach the desired "look" and appropriate levels of detail (for your taste).

Happy shooting!

mmarian
mmarian Senior Member • Posts: 2,129
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Under File go to Script and than to Image processor. You can determine the maximum with and hight to fit your downsized image into in Resize to Fit. If you tick Save as JPEG only and in the Same Location it will create a new subfolder called JPEG in the original source folder. You should tick Convert to sRGB in case the original image is in other colour space and you can Run Action which you create prior in Photoshop. This could contain USM 100/3/0 and increased saturation if you prefer so etc. . And the JPEG quality around 5 for the reasonable file size but that is entiry up to you. And than you just press Run and go and have a coffee while the PS does the job for you. Hope it helps.
mr

OP michaelbs Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

mmarian wrote:

Under File go to Script and than to Image processor. You can
determine the maximum with and hight to fit your downsized image
into in Resize to Fit. If you tick Save as JPEG only and in the
Same Location it will create a new subfolder called JPEG in the
original source folder. You should tick Convert to sRGB in case
the original image is in other colour space and you can Run Action
which you create prior in Photoshop. This could contain USM 100/3/0
and increased saturation if you prefer so etc. . And the JPEG
quality around 5 for the reasonable file size but that is entiry up
to you. And than you just press Run and go and have a coffee while
the PS does the job for you. Hope it helps.
mr

This is what I've been doing. And this gives poor results. I found out why:

When you let Image Processor do the resizing here is what happens: It makes the action (sharpen to web) FIRST. Then it resizes. It should do it the other way round.

I get better results (i've just found out) when I make an action that both reduces and sharpens and simply let Image Processor do the tiff to jpg and conversion to sRGB.

-- hide signature --
mmarian
mmarian Senior Member • Posts: 2,129
Re: What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Sounds good to me. Thanks.
mr

Robert Hoffman
Robert Hoffman Senior Member • Posts: 2,730
Re: Here's your definitive answer (and samples)...

PIXSurgeon wrote:

Your choice of sharpening method will be invariably related to the
actual level (and type) of detail (and spatial response) of the
original image, as it occurs on its original 100% size.

Please, experiment until you reach the desired "look" and
appropriate levels of detail (for your taste).

Thanks, Pix. I've always sharpened after downsizing, which has worked
out pretty well. But, I think your method of making a gentle pass at
100%, first, is a better idea. I'll give it a go.

Rob

-- hide signature --

'Don't sneak up on it - surround it'

OP michaelbs Senior Member • Posts: 2,772
Re: Here's your definitive answer (and samples)...

PIXSurgeon wrote:

When you go from sizes such as 3504x2336 to, say, 900x600 or
1200x800, the level of sharpness present on the FULL-size image is
CRITICAL, for ensuring maximum detail preservation when dowsampling
in one single "stroke", which is what I like.

Examples, here:

http://www.pbase.com/feharmat/denver

So, the basic steps are:

1. Sharpen the ORIGINAL image to a decent level, enough for seeing
some detail at 100%-size on your CRT/LCD.

2. Reduce your image with Photoshop's bi-cubic (normal), with NO
EXTRA sharpening selected for the downsampling routine.

3. Once the image is at your desired size, you will need to STUDY,
CAREFULLY, what range of spatial frequencies you will need to
boost, and accordingly perform an USM stroke targeting the desired
range. Examples:

a. USM (75%-100%,0.3.,0) will typically produce a slightly thicker,
deeper detail boost.

b. USM (200%-250%,0.2,0) will produce a precise boost of
FINELY-grained detail.

Your choice of sharpening method will be invariably related to the
actual level (and type) of detail (and spatial response) of the
original image, as it occurs on its original 100% size.

Thank you. The link you provided proves you right. Excellent downsize/sharpness technique!
You use USM and not Smart Sharpen?

-- hide signature --
QL Contributing Member • Posts: 545
Re: Here's your definitive answer (and samples)...

It all depends on how much sharpening that has already done on the original images. I found that downsizing using Bicubic Sharpen usually give over sharpened images with over exposed highlight.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads