Unsharp Mask question - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/27/2005 04:03:26 PM · #1

I just recently got the PS Elements 3. How can you tell when you have the USM "just right"? It's obvious when it's really off but there's a lot of areas in the middle when I wonder, "is it too much?" or "is it not enough". I usually start out with the amount at 100%, radius 5% and the threshold 1-2% and then play with it. Is there a solid "trick" to it? Thanks!

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

03/27/2005 04:05:01 PM · #2

A 5 pixel radius will usually oversharpen an image with those other settings.

DanSig

03/27/2005 04:18:43 PM · #3

therre is no trick it depends on the picture, I usually never take the radius above 1 and keep the threshold at 0, then I slide the amount until the preview is acceptable.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/27/2005 04:18:56 PM · #4

Your camera is already doing some sharpening. If you can, and if you don't mind a little extra work later, set the camera for minimum in-camera sharpening, and do it is post-processing where you have control of all the variables. The results will be better, expecially once you get the hang of USM.
Here are a couple tips on use of USM:
1.) Use the smallest radius that is appropriate. Most images that are not blurry to begin with will benefit most from a radius less than 1.0. Start at 0.3, and raise it a little if you need to.
2.) Amount needed varies strongly with the photo. When sharpening, zoom in to 100% on an area of high contrast & high detail. Watch the sharp dark/light transitions. Apply a high amount (>200%), then back it down until the light halos around dark areas disappear or are very small. Raise the radius a bit if required. Raising the radius will usually require lowering the amount.
3.) Set the threshold to 3 to start. That's usually a good setting for average pics, use higher if the pic is noisy, and lower if it is very "clean". Judge whether it is right by whether the USM is making noise more obvious.

Prof_Fate

03/27/2005 04:27:06 PM · #5

YOu need to practice a bit - to see what you like and what works for the camera you have. Also, printing and web display requre different amounts/types of sharpening, and then there are alternate ways to use USM (for dehazing as an example, try 35%, radius 60 t-hold 1)

My fuji was set to no incamera sharpening. I liked the results best with a first thing run of 500%, .1, 0 and then do the editing, and finish with a .3-.7 range 150-250% depending on the pic. With my rebel, i find i like a 80-120% and .7 to .9 range best.

and you can do this on a duplicate layer and then adjust the fill or opacity of the layer to fine tune the effect as well.

Artifacts

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/27/2005 04:27:25 PM · #6

I find that for most web images (for DPC or otherwise) that settings of 100%, .3 pixels, and 0 threshhold works best. It is better to undersharpen than oversharpen which gives the image a "digital" look.

However, the settings vary by image. Depending on the size, print files will require a larger threshold setting. The larger the print the higher the threshold value needed.

Usually it is said that if "haloing" appears along borders and/or "jaggies" appear anywhere then the setting is set to high. Both give the image an ugly digital look. Fine detail will begin to look both oversharpened and out-of-focus at the same time.

Remember, ALWAYS apply USM last. (less frequently you may also want to apply a little pre-processing USM at the start)

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

03/27/2005 05:12:41 PM · #7

Thanks! Here's 3 pics of flowers that I was playing around with today. Are they ok, too sharp, not enough? I'm a beginner and don't have the right lights to work with yet, so I took 2 of them near a window (it was rainy outside). Other one I was trying to see if I could do a black background. Curious to see what you think of them....

jadin

Nikon D800

03/27/2005 05:30:22 PM · #8

These look great!

My personal settings are usually...

Amount : 100%
Radius : 0.6
Threshold : 5

I find when resizing from my 5 megapixel camera to 800 or 640 width the sharpening amount is near perfection (for my personal tastes).

03/27/2005 05:43:49 PM · #9

Originally posted by pianomom:

I'd say your sharpening is excellent. Good detail without that "oversharp" look. That's especially important for florals.

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS for Canon

03/27/2005 06:28:12 PM · #10

Thanks! You don't think the last one is too sharp then? That was the one that I was wondering about the most.

ElGordo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

03/27/2005 07:44:06 PM · #11

Your unsharp masking looks pretty good. The main things to avoid are halos around high contrast areas and bright speckles in highly detailed areas.
Another application of unsharp mask can enhance a bland image: use a radius of 250 pixels, 0 threshold, and start with amount at 20%. Adjust amount for the most pleasing effect, works well for low contrast images.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

03/27/2005 08:06:17 PM · #12

Originally posted by ElGordo:

Cool! I'll try that too! Thanks!

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

03/27/2005 08:11:31 PM · #13

You can also control the results of your USM by using Fade Unsharp Mask after applying USM. Go to the edit menu and it will be the first offering on the list. Then you can, for instance, fade the effects of the bright halos, to say 50%, but keep the dark halos intact. This would allow you to use a larger radius in USM. Anybody else use this method?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/27/2005 10:09:26 PM · #14

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yep, that's another good technique. Here's yet another take on that one (it's been discussed in the forums before as well):
If you would normally use R=0.3, Amt=150, Thresh=3, then set amount to about 1/2 to 2/3 of that, or 75-100, and leave the others the same. Run the USM, then fade it, but leave it at 100% opacity and select "darken" as the blending mode. Now repeat the USM (same settings) and fade again, this time setting the blending mode to "lighten."
An image will take a bit more sharpening this way without showing halos. Running the USM in two passes also seems to help reduce artifacts.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/27/2005 10:14:00 PM · #15

You can also sharpen a duplicate of the Background layer, and then reduce the opacity to let some of the BG show through. SImilar to using the Fade effect, but changable. Not legal for Basic challenges though.

03/27/2005 10:22:23 PM · #16

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Indeed that is how I do it for advanced editing challenges. Allows you to run two-pass USM (lighten/darken) and still fade it to whatever opacity you choose later. A thing of beauty.

03/27/2005 10:22:34 PM · #17

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Is the Fade USM in PS Elements 3.0? I looked but didn't see it.

03/27/2005 10:26:35 PM · #18

I think you guys are getting over my head now! lol Maybe all of that would make more sense if I saw someone do it. I haven't even tried to do layers yet.

03/27/2005 10:29:54 PM · #19

Originally posted by pianomom:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You can also control the results of your USM by using Fade Unsharp Mask after applying USM. Go to the edit menu and it will be the first offering on the list. Then you can, for instance, fade the effects of the bright halos, to say 50%, but keep the dark halos intact. This would allow you to use a larger radius in USM. Anybody else use this method?

Is the Fade USM in PS Elements 3.0? I looked but didn't see it.

Nope, in elements you use the following work flow (not basic-editing-legal:

1.) Create a duplicate layer on top of your photo
2.) Do your USM, by whatever method you find works best for you
3.) Crank down the opacity slider on that layer to the desired level*

* I am pretty sure that you can do this in Elements, but I don't have a recent version so I can't say for sure.

Message edited by author 2005-03-27 22:31:08.

03/27/2005 10:43:37 PM · #20

I'm not sure either. I did buy a couple of books to help me with Elements 3.0 so I'll eventually figure it out, I guess. The books that I got are both by Scott Kelby. They are "The Photoshop Elements 3 Book for Digital Photograpers" and "Photoshop Elements 3 Down & Dirty Tricks". They both got really good reviews. (I also got "Organize Your Photos with Adobe Photoshop Elements 3" by Michael Slater. It's good too).