Reading mode: Light Dark

What is your resize+sharpen to web workflow?

Go to last post
I've used the batch functionality with the freeware "Irfanview" for years now. You can find it at download.com for free. For posting on my web site, I downsize to 600px (largest side) and sharpen at level 12.. and save at 93 (out of a 100). I am very pleased w/ the sharpness of the final product.

Irfanview can be used for a ton of things too!

http://www.marshallmoorheadphotography.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=1&pos=9

--
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
 
maybe a momentary glitch when you clicked on it... who knows.. works now.

--
Once a Marine, always a Marine.
 
This by far has been the most helpful thread since I started getting into the forums here about 1 1/2 years ago. I have been asking the very same question that Michael had at the beginning of this thread. Almost all my stuff goes one the web and my landscapes look awful. The trees and grass would look like someone took a hammer to them. Anything shot with my 300L or at any longer focal were just fine. I tried every approach. Anyone I asked always sated resize first using Bicubic Sharper, then sharpen after. Makes sense and it's the general standard approach. Yesterday I downloaded a trial of Photozoom Pro. It's $150 and worked OK for landscapes but for example images of homes it looked pretty bad. Then out of frustration I decided to resize with Bicubic normal and seen a huge difference. After a while I was beginning to think I was the only having this problem. Can hardly wait to try out some of the ideas. Thanks everyone
 
Forgot to mention. Am I ever glad I continued to search until I came across this thread.
 
Here is an example. A little noise in the sky but I'll figue that out. Taken with my 24-105 @105. You can almost makeout a face in the tram. Probably not the best example but it's one of my first few attempts with the new converter. I purchased Bibble Pro.

 
Zee Char said:
Here is an example. A little noise in the sky but I'll figue that
out. Taken with my 24-105 @105. You can almost makeout a face in
the tram. Probably not the best example but it's one of my first
few attempts with the new converter. I purchased Bibble Pro.

Click to expand...
Sky noise. I see it even at ISO100. Here is what I do. I use the magic wand to select the sky and save as a new layer. Then I run neat image on that layer and then merge layers and continue.

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus

Ben
 
This thread sure has been helpful. Web images are so much cleaner. I have been using Manyk SRS only since reading this thread. I tried BDsizer and IrFanView on the default settings tonight. IrFanView came out the cleanest looking but it desaturates the image. Cleanest means it's not over sharpened. Manyk was a little oversharpened so I just backed up on the 3 final steps and applied Fred Mirandas CSpro and sharpened to taste. I set BDsizer to 18%. I found it saturated the image slightly and looked a little oversharpened. I have not tried the different sampling methods or changed the % on BD. I'm going to try the different sampling methods and a few other things tommorow. You can't really go wrong. All 3 are good and make a huge difference for web veiwing. It's at the point of splitting hairs. I think I will probably stick with Manyk since it's a PS action and I wind up there after conversion. Hate to repeat myself but am I ever glad I did not give up searching for an answer and stumbled across this thread. After a while I started to think I was the only one with this problem. Has anyone deicded one of these or another method? What did you find?
 
Zee Char said:
This thread sure has been helpful. Web images are so much cleaner.
I have been using Manyk SRS only since reading this thread. I tried
BDsizer and IrFanView on the default settings tonight. IrFanView
came out the cleanest looking but it desaturates the image.
Cleanest means it's not over sharpened. Manyk was a little
oversharpened so I just backed up on the 3 final steps and applied
Fred Mirandas CSpro and sharpened to taste. I set BDsizer to 18%. I
found it saturated the image slightly and looked a little
oversharpened. I have not tried the different sampling methods or
changed the % on BD. I'm going to try the different sampling
methods and a few other things tommorow. You can't really go wrong.
All 3 are good and make a huge difference for web veiwing. It's at
the point of splitting hairs. I think I will probably stick with
Manyk since it's a PS action and I wind up there after conversion.
Hate to repeat myself but am I ever glad I did not give up
searching for an answer and stumbled across this thread. After a
while I started to think I was the only one with this problem. Has
anyone deicded one of these or another method? What did you find?
Click to expand...
I think Manyk's action is good. Very good. I did change one step of the action, however. I changed the "fit image" to "Image size" and set the height to 800. Why? Because I wanted to be able to make wider images when landscape oriented (800 x 1200).
I get a very similar result with FM Intellisharpen.
What bothers me is the jpg compression. It adds noise.

For me the critical points are the OOF areas and the transitions between sharp and blurred areas. My L lenses give excellent bokeh but it's a little waste of money if the Bokeh is made harsher and less subtle and creamy with the downsize/sharpen routine. I know it's perfectly possible to sharpen selectively but I'm talking batchprocessing.
Still searching for the best compromise.

--
best regards
Michael
http://michaelbennati.dk/galleri/
 
I don't know what gear you have but you might consider looking at the Fred Miranda wesite. Look for CSpro sharpening software. He has several and each one is specific for the camera body. It does not sharpen the sky, walls, etc. I guess looks for edges, etc and does those. Good luck.
 
Totally agree. By far the best resizing program, extremely fast and convenient for batching. I re-size to size 800 (btw, can re-size by the longest size dimension) and sharpen level 11 or 12. Works magically.
 
If you do use Manyk and want it looking cleaner just go into the history and back up to a couple of sharpening steps. If you take it the last "Set current layer" it looks just the Irfanveiw. Irfanveiw needs a little sharpening.

I tried to find a good example where you can really see the difference. All resizied to 800 by 533. You can see how poor the just using PS on its own is.

Resizing in PS then applying USM 100 0.05 0



Resizing using Manyk right through



Resizing in Manyk - back up 3 steps and apply CSpro USM 310 0.05 0



Resizing in Manyk - and just back up 3 steps.

 
If you resize to your desired size and THEN sharpen, you lost a ton of valuable information.

A photographer friend of mine (Marc Adamus) shares this techinique which provides the most amazing sharpening I've found yet:

Sharpening for the Web—Marc Adamus
  • Take full res image and reduce size to between 1000 and 1300 pixels. As much as 1300 for detailed forest scenes and such, 1000 for rock and more simple images. Apply "Sharpen" filter (easy enough right?) twice or even three times at 1300-1600 pixels.
  • This will create a very oversharpened, noisy, mid-size image.
  • Futher reduce image size to your web preference, such as 600 or 700 pixels.
  • When reduced, this "tricks" Photoshop into applying an ultra-fine USM that you simply cannot acheive through other methods and all with maybe a 5-10% increase in file size vs. traditional methods such as regular USM or PK sharpener - which is rarely a problem.
  • Play around with this technique and make it work for you. Every image is different. Sometimes I'll apply a sharpen filter 3 times at 1500 pixels and then reduce for an even finer sharpness, but other times it has too much of an adverse effect on color and resaturation is necessary. Sometimes I'll just lasso an area and apply the filter more heavily in one section before reducing size. Just experiment!
  • Last, keep in mind not to sharpen skies too much as this will unecessarily increase file size. Do local touch-ups with 'sharp brush' to improve textures/definition in sky and water!
Try this and be amazed at the details in small things that will show up in web images....

-John Lehmkuhl
--
*********************************************************
Main Photo Gallery: http://www.realkuhl.com/gallery
Lens Example Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/realkuhl/lens_examples
 
...Why does not someone post a full-size sample, and have everyone reduce it to 600x900 or 800x1200, and publish their results, so we can all determine the best way to go here?

However wants to post the sample, simply go ahead and we'll start!
 
Excellent suggestion. I'm sure you even have an good image to run through the resizing torture :)
 
I tried it today John. Several times. It did not so anything. I just stopped half way through. Should I be waiting longer?
 
Forgot to mention. I have been dealing with lousy resized images I'm happy just to get this far. I'm alwasy open to new suggestions.
 
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