Am sticking with OMD, sharpness is improving

[Adventsam]

Yes, I notice when that same image was posted yesterday. Good on ya.

As I see them on this monitor (glossy), I'd have bushed the f/g to be a bit less harsh, but that's not the point here (just saying, 'cause I quite enjoy this scene).

Agreed

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

 

[Adventsam]

Interesting!

 

[bcalkins]

I find that if my photo will be subject to scrutiny at 100%, I tend to use some NR + sharpening. On the other hand, if I'm downsizing to the web or printing it isn't usually an issue at base ISO.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Was for 3 but applies to 4 too ;-)

http://mansurovs.com/how-to-properly-sharpen-images-in-lightroom

I'd like to add that the Clarity feature is something to toy with, and either look up in one's Martin Evening LR/PS reference books, or on the internet. Clarity can be over-utilized, but it can help with scenic detail and contrast a great deal. Unfortunately, a global application on a scenic tends to cause distracting broad halos about strong contrast areas (trees against sky, fading mountain ranges into the horizon). Using a brush with negative Clarity over those distractions can pull back the effect sufficiently while still retaining the global Clarity overall. (This also works on Clarity applied with a gradient).

Raising the shadows I think also can impart a similar halo (or enhance the effect of Clarity). When brushing in the negative Clarity, some additional small/fine tweaking of shadows and highlights might also be called for in certain circumstances.

If brushing and using gradient localized effects is intimidating or frustrating, one shouldn't push themselves. But also, one shouldn't just stop trying altogether. Stab at it, delete the brush strokes or gradient if they dont work out and move on. . . but eventually something clicks and it starts coming together. Knowing what you'd like to do, and knowing how to do it - one can be unsure of either initially. But the process of looking and trying helps the eye's discernment evolve, and one's chops then also falls in line. At first it may take a bit of time to address what needs addressing, but that too sorts itself out the more one does it.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

 

[RickPick]

@RickPick

The numbers still look 'wrong' to me but they appear to work - so i'm in the process of reprogramming my head ;-)

--
Ian

Thanks for the explanation! Personally, I don't like sharpening, at all, as it seems to cause small "halos" on the edges and increases noise, but I will try again with setting like yours as it doesn't pay to have a closed mind. Also I am not sure that maximum detail is always the best thing, even with landscape shots. It depends on the scene and the mood.

 

[Steven 2]

I agree - masking is awesome. I almost always use it.

 

[Ollie 2]

Yikes.

Watch that amount of NR.

Robbing Peter to p[ay Paul there.

 

[rrr_hhh]

@RickPick

I'm basically 'Old School' and always believed in using as little as possible or no NR. And as little sharpening as possible. Some of the things that i read on diglloyd's site about sharpening challenged my beliefs. When I tried his approach i found that it had definite merits, but that (for my taste) i had to use NR. Now I find that for most shots I can have both good detail and 'smooth' at the same time.

The numbers still look 'wrong' to me but they appear to work - so i'm in the process of reprogramming my head ;-)

Please do you have a link to that site and how does he justify that : be ause my first reaction was the same : NR and sharpening are cancelling themselves ? Or not ? Each time I have tried such extreme settings, I ended with very plasticky looking results, but I don't whatnot have a closed mind either !
--
rrr_hhh

 

[Timur Born]

http://diglloyd.com/

Parts of his site is paid content (last time I checked), though. I know him from the Apple Mac side of things that he often writes free articles about (also offers some testing utilities).

 

[rrr_hhh]

http://diglloyd.com/

Parts of his site is paid content (last time I checked), though. I know him from the Apple Mac side of things that he often writes free articles about (also offers some testing utilities).

Thanks Timur,

I had just googled it and found about it, well if you want to get access to his sharpening techniques, you have to pay 50$, you can't download anything (no pdf, no ebook, etc.), you have to read it on an Internet connexion and it will only last one year ! Sounds like a big rip off to me.

You can get Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schuwe book for much less (hint : they were the ones who helped Adobe when they designed the actual sharpen panel for LR) :

Kindle version for a little more than 22.78$ :

http://www.amazon.com/Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom-ebook/dp/B002NQSMWW/ref=sr_1_1_title_1_kin?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344672645&sr=1-1&keywords=Fraser+Bruce+sharpening

Paperback version for 31.49$

http://www.amazon.com/Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom-Edition/dp/0321637550/ref=la_B0032E0PNS_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1344673336&sr=1-2

You will learn a lot about how sharpening works, but expect no receipts to make all your images look good.. This is the old school : not too much pre-sharpening and second sharpening at the time of output.

I'm not ready to pay that much to Didilloyd's just to get just a few hints among a lot of more general things which I'm sure I know since a long time (I own the above mentionned paperback book).

--
rrr_hhh

 

[Iantau]

@rrr_hhh

The books you mention and diglloyd don't really overlap much at all. LLoyd's focus is on TAKING sharp photos - eg focus shift, characteristics of specific lenses, focus system inaccuracies, shutter induced vibration, etc.

He has a systematic approach, is thorough and his conclusions are well explained.

As with everything, whether it is worth paying for is totally dependent on a persons financial situation. The content, however, is worth the cost if you have the disposable means to pay for it..

If nothing else it is very interesting seeing his comparative tests (photographic) of the resolving power of m43 (E-M5) and other systems such as 5DIII and D800

--
Ian
'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´

 

[rrr_hhh]

May be that I misunderstood what you were saying here @ Rick :

@RickPick

I'm basically 'Old School' and always believed in using as little as possible or no NR. And as little sharpening as possible. Some of the things that i read on diglloyd's site about sharpening challenged my beliefs. When I tried his approach i found that it had definite merits, but that (for my taste) i had to use NR. Now I find that for most shots I can have both good detail and 'smooth' at the same time.

The numbers still look 'wrong' to me but they appear to work - so i'm in the process of reprogramming my head

First, I'm also "Old School" in the sense of using as little NR and sharpening as possible. I took what you said above as a statement that

1) Diglloyd defends an opposite approach when it comes to sharpening and NR, aka he doesn't hesitate to use it heavily;

2) What he said convinced you to change your approach and to use more sharpening and NR.

I'm only interested in that part. Just curious to see whether I should get convinced too.

But may be that I didn't get what you said.

As for the rest, I know all I need concerning how to get sharp pictures at the time of shooting and have no intention to use DOF bracketing and combine shots afterwards. I read the index of his book, so I see what it was about.

The books you mention and diglloyd don't really overlap much at all. LLoyd's focus is on TAKING sharp photos - eg focus shift, characteristics of specific lenses, focus system inaccuracies, shutter induced vibration, etc.

He has a systematic approach, is thorough and his conclusions are well explained.

As with everything, whether it is worth paying for is totally dependent on a persons financial situation. The content, however, is worth the cost if you have the disposable means to pay for it..

If nothing else it is very interesting seeing his comparative tests (photographic) of the resolving power of m43 (E-M5) and other systems such as 5DIII and D800

--
Ian
'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´

--
rrr_hhh

 

[Timur Born]

That's also why I mentioned the "Green Equilibration" think in the first place. Getting sharper images on the input side - post demosaicing in this case - is always preferable to any sharpening algorithms. Less software sharpening also helps to keep the noise down.

 

[Richie15]

This is a great thread. I am surprised more people have not posted.

I have found the only was to get the right balance between sharpness and noise is to use Olympus Viewer, set sharpening to -2 and then export as a tiff. Then import to Lightroom for sharpening. It's a long way of solving the problem but it does work.

The downside is that trying to recover detail from a TIFF in Lightroom is much more difficult.

I will try the settings later in lightroom to see if this achieves the same thing

 

[Iantau]

@rrr_hhh

Actually diglloyd states that he NEVER uses NR. It was his (to me ) very high levels of sharpening that got me out of my 'i know what i'm doing' rut.

--I must point out that the parameter sets i showed in my first post work on Lightroom 4.1 - they produce 'plastic mush' in earlier versions.

Logically I would have thought that high NR and high sharpening would cancel each other out - however that doesn't appear to happen in this case. Note if you push the parameters a bit more it quickly goes really plastic.

As for masking ... i find that in some situations it can work really well, but if there are high frequency, high contrast details in the subject then masking can rapidly produce an awful artificial look - like drastic over sharpening :-(

Ian
'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´'·.¸¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´¯'·.¸.·´

 

[dcassat]

nt
--
Dan

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

no text

--
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.

God is the tangential point between zero and infinity.

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

God always take the simplest way.

• http://aleo-photo.org

• http://blog.aleo-photo.org

 

[Timur Born]

Here is one more example. The fences consist of vertical bars.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Another 'yea, me too' here, Timur. If there's anything mere mortals can do in the way of getting this resolved, just holler. Otherwise, thanks for all your efforts and insights.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.