DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Individual Photograph Discussion >> Photo Sharpening Doubt: Help needed
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/10/2005 10:58:48 AM · #1
Hi, friends!

I have got the following sharpening process from the Internet but have some doubt at line 3 and line 5. What is edit/fade USM, 100% actually?

Can anybody explain the steps?
Or
Would you mind to share any special photo sharpening process, that you think sound?

The following is the steps by author LUKO, that I got from the net :
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦
I have my own sharpen script that I run through Pshop regardless of the pic quality, it has always improved the image :
Line 1. USM : effect 18, radius 40, threshold 0
Line 2. USM : effect 150 radius 0.3, threshold 0
Line 3. edit/fade USM, 100%, darken blend mode,
Line 4. USM : effect 150 radius 0.3, threshold 0
Line 5. edit/fade USM, 50%, brighten blend mode.

Save it at once and run it every time you want!â
â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦â¦

Thanks friends for giving your valuable time to read out my problem :o)

With love,
Rudra
 11/10/2005 11:03:49 AM · #2
[quote=PERCOM

Save it at once and run it every time you want!â

[/quote]

Excuse my stupidity, but, Can you record a process to be "Autorun" in photoshop? Like a Macro in Excel?
 11/10/2005 11:03:55 AM · #3
Any time you perform an action in Photoshop, immediately after you have done so you can go to the edit menu and select "fade xxxx", "xxxx" being whatever the last action was. In that dialogue box you can choose a blending mode as well; in this case the modes are "darken" and "lighten" respectively. Using different blending modes on parallel/sequential passes of USM is very effective for heightening contrast while not introducing excessive artifacts (usually haloing) to the image.

I use a similar script I wrote myself in advanced editing. BUT BEWARE: sharpenign actions that use other-than-normal blending modes are not legal in basic editing.

Robt.
 11/10/2005 11:05:31 AM · #4
Originally posted by BIG AL:
Originally posted by PERCOM:


Save it at once and run it every time you want!â



Excuse my stupidity, but, Can you record a process to be "Autorun" in photoshop? Like a Macro in Excel?


Yes. They are called "actions" and you can create them to automate any process you run repetitively. Sharpening is a likely candidate, as is resizing and adding borders. For how to do it, check PS help on "creating actions"; it's not difficult at all.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:06:24.
 11/10/2005 11:30:18 AM · #5
Originally posted by bear_music:
Any time you perform an action in Photoshop, immediately after you have done so you can go to the edit menu and select "fade xxxx", "xxxx" being whatever the last action was. In that dialogue box you can choose a blending mode as well; in this case the modes are "darken" and "lighten" respectively. Using different blending modes on parallel/sequential passes of USM is very effective for heightening contrast while not introducing excessive artifacts (usually haloing) to the image.

I use a similar script I wrote myself in advanced editing. BUT BEWARE: sharpenign actions that use other-than-normal blending modes are not legal in basic editing.

Robt.


Are you sure about that? The rule applies to the use of layers in non normal mode. You are not using a layer.

I know that sounds stupid, but using fade at all in any mode is already against the spirit of the rules, but I know of examples specifically where it has been ruled as legal. For example, the "soft focus" challenge (or whatever it was called).

I had elements at the time, and I couldn't use a second layer to apply a gaussian blur and then adjust it's opacity. But those with PS could (and site council said) use the fade command, even though it's exactly the same as applying a second image layer and adjusting its opacity.

So I wouldn't assume without clarification that the rules for layers "literally" apply to fade! Or else you would not be able to do fade at all in basic.

Site council, care to clarify this?

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:32:15.
 11/10/2005 11:44:20 AM · #6
I think the blend modes rather than the fade are the issue with basic editing.
 11/10/2005 11:53:16 AM · #7
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Are you sure about that? The rule applies to the use of layers in non normal mode. You are not using a layer.

I know that sounds stupid, but using fade at all in any mode is already against the spirit of the rules, but I know of examples specifically where it has been ruled as legal. For example, the "soft focus" challenge (or whatever it was called).

I had elements at the time, and I couldn't use a second layer to apply a gaussian blur and then adjust it's opacity. But those with PS could (and site council said) use the fade command, even though it's exactly the same as applying a second image layer and adjusting its opacity.

So I wouldn't assume without clarification that the rules for layers "literally" apply to fade! Or else you would not be able to do fade at all in basic.

Site council, care to clarify this?


I was referring to the blending mode, which must be "normal" in basic editing; the script listed in the original post uses both "darken" and "lighten" modes, and these are not legal in basic.

I see no reason why the "fade" command itself should ever be questioned; its end result is simply to lower the amount of whatever correction you have applied. Example: I try USM at 200%; too much. Backstep and try 175%; still too much. Backstep again and try 150%; not quite enough. Backstep and try it a fourth time at 160%; just right!

OR: set USM at 200%, go to "edit/fade USM" and fiddle with the slider, find it looks just right at 80%. Much simpler, same result. In advanced editing, I do this on a separate, pixel-containing layer, and then fade the layer opacity. In basic that's not allowed, but it's CERTAINLY allowed to do/undo, do/undo, repeatedly until you get the right solution. "Fade" command is just an interactive, graduated undo command that allows you to see the results in real time.

R.

Edit to add: I see what you mean; the proscription against other-than-normal blending modes is appended to the "layers" paragraph in the basic rules. So if one were to pick nits, one might argue that "fade" is not a layer, and not subject to this proscription. However, the USM is being done TO a layer, the base layer, so in a sense whatever mode the fade is applied in, is applied to that layer...

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:58:30.
 11/10/2005 11:59:48 AM · #8
Yes, but my point is that fade is just a convenience feature.

What is really happening behind the scenes:

1) A second PIXEL layer of the same image is created
2) The effect (e.g., blur) is applied
3) The opacity is changed to "fade" it.

Although I don't have the code behind PS, there's was discussion during the soft focus challenge acknowledging that fade (even in normal blend) is tantamount to applying a second copy of the image and then adjusting its opacity. Illegal in basic if you do it one way, but not the other!

PS: In fact, that's why you can change the blend mode of a fade--it works just like a second image layer.

Message edited by author 2005-11-10 12:01:23.
 11/10/2005 12:07:37 PM · #9
The Smart Sharpen filter in Photoshop CS2 is very good, and in my opinion one of the better features in the new PS version. You have a lot more leverage than the USM filter. You can sharpen and fade also using different blurring modes in the shadows and highlights. There are also fade sliders in the sharpener itself. I do not use the USM filter anymore since this new filter is available.
 11/10/2005 12:15:01 PM · #10
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Yes, but my point is that fade is just a convenience feature.

What is really happening behind the scenes:

1) A second PIXEL layer of the same image is created
2) The effect (e.g., blur) is applied
3) The opacity is changed to "fade" it.

Although I don't have the code behind PS, there's was discussion during the soft focus challenge acknowledging that fade (even in normal blend) is tantamount to applying a second copy of the image and then adjusting its opacity. Illegal in basic if you do it one way, but not the other!

PS: In fact, that's why you can change the blend mode of a fade--it works just like a second image layer.


Well, that may be true, but it's a kind of scary level of nitpicking IMO. Scary largely because it's absolutely unproveable; it cannot be policed. The results of USM/fade USM (in normal mode) cannot be differentiated from repeated USM/undo USM passes in different percentages until optimum is discovered. Not only that, but even IF the use of "fade" was outlawed, the simnple solution would be to overcook USM, fade and note percentage, step back in history, and apply the calculated amount of USM directly.

What would be the point of that?

And if someone were to argue that this violates the "spirit" of the rules I'd just have to shake my head. I can't tell you how many times I've edited an image just for myself, then subsequently decided to enter it in a basic challenge, and opened a fresh copy and worked within basic rules to duplicate what I had already done in a "free" environment. Except for images that require heavy localized processing (i.e. masks) it's pretty much always possible.

Here's another example, from the other direction. I've seen it mentioned several times in here that SC have "ruled" that shadow/highlight adjustment in CS2 is basic-legal. And yet shadow/highlight adjustment in CS2 is just a more sophisticated, interactive application of contrast masking, which involves feathered selections of bright & dark areas that overlap each other, and the altering of layer modes (typically screen and multiply) to adjust dynamic range. We can do this in earlier PS versions with cntrl-alt-tilde and two new layers blended together in different modes. But we can't do it in basic editing. So in THIS case, apparently, in order to expnad my image's dynamic range I need to get a new operating system and a new version of PS, even though I can do the exact same thing manually in PS 7.0...

Robt.
 11/10/2005 12:19:54 PM · #11
Originally posted by kiwiness:
The Smart Sharpen filter in Photoshop CS2 is very good, and in my opinion one of the better features in the new PS version. You have a lot more leverage than the USM filter. You can sharpen and fade also using different blurring modes in the shadows and highlights. There are also fade sliders in the sharpener itself. I do not use the USM filter anymore since this new filter is available.


That's another example of the same thing as shadow/highlight; the latest version of PS is setting all these previously manual processes as dialogue boxes full of options. Note that you can use "different blurring" in shadows and highlights, which involves some sort of selection being made at some level. One might argue that hue/sat and selective color do just that, and I couldn't agree more. My problem is that there's apparently a trend to do more and more stuff in PS without "overt" selection being needed, and to the extent that this is permitted in basic it creates serious inequities for those of us who use an older version.

R.
 11/10/2005 12:35:47 PM · #12
Back to the origanal post...
Many folks claim that the type or amount of sharpening will vary by imag content (lots of sky or a close up of a face as opposed to a detailed macro of a leaf or cityscape). From my expereince their is some difference but it is minor.

Where i see the biggest differences in my sharpening technique is file size - if i am sharpening a 2000x3000 instead of a 640x480 then i have to do it differently (amount/radius wise).

I had a routine all set with my Fuji S602. two USM passes, a light one before anything and then a final one that depended on final output method. When i went to my Rebel, i had to change it completely (no first pass at all and much less on the last pass, and just this week I have found that shots converted from RAW captures requre much more sharpening than an JPG capture. I am still working on that workflow - I am open to suggestions on how to get the best out of the RAW capture!

Sticking with JPG captures, I can print razor sharp with NO sharpening at 8x10 and with some USM those images appear so on the web also. If i do much if any USM and print the image it seem oversharpened (printing done via a service on a Fuji machine. I don't use an inkjet so can't speak for prooper workflow there.
 11/10/2005 12:37:09 PM · #13
Note:

If anyone wants this, I've put it in my PIActions file at

//www.pictureinfinity.com/PIActions.atn

Download the file, put it in c:\program files\adobe\Photoshop\Presets\Photoshop Actions

Re open PS and click Actions on the pallette. Click the little tiny right arrow and "Load Actions" Navigate to PIActions and open that.

**PIProofs is a little proofing script I use that improves almost every image - I think it uses Neat Image so if you don't have NI, you may want to delete that step.

**PISepia is a conconction I made using the Ink Nik Filter - if you don't have that filter, you can delete this action.

**PIbw is a VERY cool little filter. If you change the hue/lightness on the first step, you can make sure skin colors are where you want them to be, then continue the action and it makes it a b/w using that skin tone.

**saveweb is just a save for web action for showing simple things online - it's not optimized except that I don't care if I show things over 70 quality on the web, so it's saved at that level.

**HP2 Sharpen is the action detailed above exactly as the steps appear.

**High Pass sharpen is a traditional high pass sharpen as detailed on the Luminous Landscape, but with slightly different settings I believe. It's also a very nice sharpen action.

**brighten is a curves bump. It brightens the image slightly and the effect can be reduced with an edit/fade.

:)

M
 11/10/2005 01:08:23 PM · #14
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Yes, but my point is that fade is just a convenience feature.

What is really happening behind the scenes:

1) A second PIXEL layer of the same image is created
2) The effect (e.g., blur) is applied
3) The opacity is changed to "fade" it.

Although I don't have the code behind PS, there's was discussion during the soft focus challenge acknowledging that fade (even in normal blend) is tantamount to applying a second copy of the image and then adjusting its opacity. Illegal in basic if you do it one way, but not the other!

PS: In fact, that's why you can change the blend mode of a fade--it works just like a second image layer.


Well, that may be true, but it's a kind of scary level of nitpicking IMO. Scary largely because it's absolutely unproveable; it cannot be policed. The results of USM/fade USM (in normal mode) cannot be differentiated from repeated USM/undo USM passes in different percentages until optimum is discovered. Not only that, but even IF the use of "fade" was outlawed, the simnple solution would be to overcook USM, fade and note percentage, step back in history, and apply the calculated amount of USM directly.

What would be the point of that?

And if someone were to argue that this violates the "spirit" of the rules I'd just have to shake my head. I can't tell you how many times I've edited an image just for myself, then subsequently decided to enter it in a basic challenge, and opened a fresh copy and worked within basic rules to duplicate what I had already done in a "free" environment. Except for images that require heavy localized processing (i.e. masks) it's pretty much always possible.

Here's another example, from the other direction. I've seen it mentioned several times in here that SC have "ruled" that shadow/highlight adjustment in CS2 is basic-legal. And yet shadow/highlight adjustment in CS2 is just a more sophisticated, interactive application of contrast masking, which involves feathered selections of bright & dark areas that overlap each other, and the altering of layer modes (typically screen and multiply) to adjust dynamic range. We can do this in earlier PS versions with cntrl-alt-tilde and two new layers blended together in different modes. But we can't do it in basic editing. So in THIS case, apparently, in order to expnad my image's dynamic range I need to get a new operating system and a new version of PS, even though I can do the exact same thing manually in PS 7.0...

Robt.


No, I'm not nitpicking or arguing that it should be illegal--I'm happy that it's legal.

That gets me back to my original point which I was responding to in your post! If Fade is not considered an application of layers, but rather "an independent tool", how can you generalize and say that the blend mode has to be normal. The blend mode rule applies to LAYERS.

Unless the site council wants to rule on this, I am trying to avoid generalizing rules based on functionality, because it doesn't work across the board already! So I think in fact we agree--this in fact, is what you were arguing as well, when you said that it would be nitpicking to consider fade illegal just because it does exactly the same thing as applying a pixel layer with an effect and changing the transparency.


11/10/2005 01:16:55 PM · #15
Originally posted by nshapiro:


That gets me back to my original point which I was responding to in your post! If Fade is not considered an application of layers, but rather "an independent tool", how can you generalize and say that the blend mode has to be normal. The blend mode rule applies to LAYERS.


Yah. The simple solution is to reword the rules so "blending mode must be set at normal" (or somesuch) stands alone, not as a part of the "layers" paragraph. That would fix things up, at least with regard to the status quo.

R.
 11/10/2005 01:33:06 PM · #16
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:


That gets me back to my original point which I was responding to in your post! If Fade is not considered an application of layers, but rather "an independent tool", how can you generalize and say that the blend mode has to be normal. The blend mode rule applies to LAYERS.


Yah. The simple solution is to reword the rules so "blending mode must be set at normal" (or somesuch) stands alone, not as a part of the "layers" paragraph. That would fix things up, at least with regard to the status quo.

R.


Yes, but why do you want fade to be illegal in other blend modes?

After you have done your sharpening, add a gaussian blur, fade it but use blend mode soft light, and see how much it improves the feel of the shot (it actually appears to sharpens it, but without the artifacts). Not sure I understand why, but I think it's a lovely postprocessing technique.
 11/10/2005 01:41:41 PM · #17
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nshapiro:


That gets me back to my original point which I was responding to in your post! If Fade is not considered an application of layers, but rather "an independent tool", how can you generalize and say that the blend mode has to be normal. The blend mode rule applies to LAYERS.


Yah. The simple solution is to reword the rules so "blending mode must be set at normal" (or somesuch) stands alone, not as a part of the "layers" paragraph. That would fix things up, at least with regard to the status quo.

R.


Yes, but why do you want fade to be illegal in other blend modes?

After you have done your sharpening, add a gaussian blur, fade it but use blend mode soft light, and see how much it improves the feel of the shot (it actually appears to sharpens it, but without the artifacts). Not sure I understand why, but I think it's a lovely postprocessing technique.


It's not that I am anti-modes, it's just that I think it's important to have the ruleset be consistent. If you allow other-than-normal modes in specific instances, you introduce gray areas. Personally I'd prefer blend mode not be regulated in either ruleset. That's why i said "status quo" above.

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:22:22 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/26/2025 06:22:22 PM EDT.