How much should a photo be sharpened.

Sigma 100-300mm f/4.0 EX IF HSM for Nikon

01/19/2005 07:25:01 PM · #1

When I resize my photos I find that to get them to look good to my eye I need to sharpen them. When I am voting I see a lot of photos that look like they have been resized but not sharpened afterwards and look a little soft to my eye. I worry that what looks to go me may well look over sharpened to others, either due to differences in taste or perhaps even differences in monitors.

I would like to start a discussion on how people view sharpening, I have included two photos that each have three versions, all started from the same resized photos, one has no sharpening, one used USM at 80% radius of 1 and threshold of 1 and the last at 100% radius of 1 and threshold of 1.

I would love to hear which amound of sharpening people think looks best and would welcome others taking the unsharpened photos and sharpening them to their own taste, telling us the settings they used.

The photos go in the order of 0% 80% 100% USM

MrYu

Nikon D70

01/19/2005 07:28:47 PM · #2

One thing i hate are those light lines arond dark shapes on oversharpened images. I'd say as long as those are not noticeably visible sharpen all you want.

For regular shots i usually do about .9pix radius, 60-80% unsharp mask. Depending on the subject matter those parameters would vary. If it's a really involved image with a lot of contrasty details, i sometimes change the threshold to 2-5 pix, to save the jpeg space. But really it's all very subjective, and i am not sure there is one solution or recommendation for all possible situations, monitors, images, subjects, etc.

Edit: on this laptop screen, images 2 and 3 look overshapened. Butthis would be different on a CRT, i'm sure. Probably #2 would be the right one.

Message edited by author 2005-01-19 19:30:09.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/19/2005 07:29:34 PM · #3

The 80% is looking the best, but you can fine-tune it more with some variation of radius and threshold. Run a new series all at 80% and play with radius and threshold...

Robt.

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/19/2005 07:34:16 PM · #4

Scott, with both images, I can't really see a difference between 80 and 100%. I think the #2 and #3 of each of them look equally good.

I don't have a set amount that I sharpen with. It depends on what size the image is that I'm sharpening. It also depends if there's any grain in the image - if there is, I might try a higher threshold. I think it also depends on the subject and colors in the image...some seem to sharpen (and oversharpen) more quickly than others.

I guess I could sum it up by saying that my percentage is usually (not always) between 250 and 500, the radius is between .2 and .6, and the threshold is usually zero but at times 3 or 5. On rare occasions I've used a threshold of 10, but typically it's zero.

Sorry I can't be more specific.

Jen

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

01/19/2005 07:34:37 PM · #5

Originally posted by scottwilson:

I would love to hear which amound of sharpening people think looks best and would welcome others taking the unsharpened photos and sharpening them to their own taste, telling us the settings they used.

I usually look for the tell-tale halos that appear on oversharpened images in transition areas, ie. light to dark areas delineated by sharp lines.

I normally sharpen my full size images 125%, 1 Radius, 0 Threshold. When I resize for web I normally re-sharpen 125%, 0.5 Radius, 0 Threshold.

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/19/2005 07:36:44 PM · #6

Originally posted by yurasocolov:

One thing i hate are those light lines arond dark shapes on oversharpened images. I'd say as long as those are not noticeably visible sharpen all you want.

I agree. Those "halos" are annoying and look awful. When I first started I loved heavy USM. I must have been blind. USM is best in small doses!

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

01/19/2005 07:42:07 PM · #7

I don't see a whole lot of difference between 80 and 100%, but they look like a good range of sharpening.

Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM

01/19/2005 07:47:16 PM · #8

It seems like the consensus is that most photos benefit from some sharpening after resizing, the amount is depended on the photo. Is there anyone who thinks the resized photos without any sharpening look the best? What has me so interested in this is that while voting on the best of 2004 I have come across a few photos that I think are great but they look to me as if they were resized and then posted without any sharpening at all. One of these photos I gave a 9 but probably would have given it a 10 if it looked just a bit sharper. The photo in question is, in my opinion, much better then my own submission and so I feel funny leaving a comment saying that it does not look as sharp as I would like to see it. On the other hand I know I want to know anything that anybody find fault with my photos.

orussell

Canon EOS Rebel T6s

01/19/2005 07:49:23 PM · #9

//epaperpress.com/psphoto/index.html

This is a pretty good resource.

ButterflySis

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/19/2005 07:51:52 PM · #10

Originally posted by scottwilson:

...and so I feel funny leaving a comment saying that it does not look as sharp as I would like to see it. On the other hand I know I want to know anything that anybody find fault with my photos.

You shouldn't not comment on what you see just because you feel something is better than yours. I would be honest in your comment. Maybe the person doesn't realize it's a little soft.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/19/2005 07:52:06 PM · #11

Scott, on your first photo I thought #3 was too much, but #2 was just right.

On your second photo, #3 looks fine - very crisp but not harsh.

Your "model" looks very nice, however, generally speaking when it comes to people, a little less sharpening is more forgiving. No need to show off EVERY wrinkle in its full glory *s*.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

01/19/2005 07:54:41 PM · #12

IMO, what each image needs is a bit different. Certainly what a full-resolution image needs is quite different than what is needed by an image that has been significantly reduced in size.
DSLR images should normally be sharpened right out of the camera using a small radius (Canon recommends 0.3 radius, 300% for some of their DSLRs). Non-DSLR cams normally apply enough in-camera sharpening that this step is unncessary.
Final sharpening after resizing for the web is usually necessary as well, and varies with the image. I rarely use a radius above 0.5, and amounts vary from 75% to 200% or even a bit more. I often do my final sharpening pass in two steps, and "fade" the last pass to get the right look. Fading to luminosity mode also is a good idea, though the effects are subtle.
You'll notice that I have not discussed a threshold setting. I wanted to separate that discussion, since folks seem to be in different camps on this. What the threshold does is to not sharpen edges with luminosity differences less than the threshold. the ideal setting for threshold is that which sharpens all edges of real detail, while not raising noise. In reality, compromise is necessary. A zero threshold means everything gets sharpened, and noise will become more apparent. For many photos this is not an issue, but especially for small-sensor cams, noise is a real issue, and we need to do everyting possible to avoid making the problem worse. Setting the threshold to a low, non-zero value is the best way to do this. Again, each image is different, each model of camera is different, but values between 2 and 8 seem to be optimal. Experiment. For my Canon 10D, I tend to use 2 or 3, except if I've shot at 800 ISO or higher, in which case I call it as I see it.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/19/2005 07:56:59 PM · #13

Originally posted by Beetle:

The "model" is my wife, notice she has the good camera. She well be 49 this year if you can believe it, between the two of us I got all the wrinkles.

Beetle

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

01/19/2005 08:11:27 PM · #14

Scott, your reply worried me. I was by NO means suggesting that your wife needs the "softer treatment". As I said earlier, she looks very nice, indeed!

I was only offering my opinion that some photos need a fair bit of sharpening, whereas I quite like to see portraits a little softer.

So - do you get to at least HOLD her camera every now and again? *s*

01/19/2005 08:22:00 PM · #15

Originally posted by Beetle:

Sorry, I did not at all mean to say you thought she needed softer focus, it just amazes me how well she has aged.

I do get to use the 20D from time to time, it is a great camera and she is having a lot of fun with it. She had a point and shoot before and would get discouraged when my photos came out better then hers. Any one who tells you it is all the photographer and not the camera is just plain wrong, good cameras take better photos bad cameras take mediocre photos. So I got her the 20D and just like that her photos got better, by a lot.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

01/19/2005 08:33:37 PM · #16

What I did was use USM for slightly brightening midrange. Amount 19% Radius at 95 pixels and threshold 0 level. Then I made a Layer and used Sharpen, then cut the sharpening down to 20% and merged the image. Next I used the noise filter is Photoshop Elements 3 set at level 2, and color noise 0. Maybe a strange way to go but I just have to experiment. It is subtle.