| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/06/2012 07:22:09 PM · #1 |
I know that sharpening should be done at the end of your workflow before printing / publishing, but I've been playing with the sharpening in Aperture and it set me thinking.
I always shoot in RAW, so when I'm in Aperture before exporting to Photoshop, Aperture still has all the RAW information to play with, whereas on export, it becomes a PSD (or TIFF or JPG depending on your settings) at which point the photo is locked as a generated bitmap.
Does this mean that if you're sharpening in Aperture (before export) you would get better results than you would in Photoshop as it has more info to play with? And if yes, then how do you handle the situation where you need to take it into Photoshop for further edits and as such turning it into a PSD. Should you sharpen before export, or in Photoshop at the end of the editing as per above? |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 07:30:30 PM · #2 |
if you export it as a jpg. i know for sure that is where the information is lost. PSD is still alright! But i would sharpen in PS. but sometimes i sharpen in both PS and Lightroom. Others may have different opinions but ehh.. whatever..
when you export a photo from bridge import it first into camera RAW, make some changes, and then make sure you select the option of importing that into PS as a smart object. Nothing is lost. when downsizing to upload i always try to remember to sharpen one last time. i try either smart sharp or unsharpen mask. both at 1.3 pixels and adjust the percentage to see which i like better. |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 07:43:35 PM · #3 |
| I always thought it wasn't a great idea to sharpen more than once, though perhaps a light sharpen in Aperture before export and a final one when the image is complete could work well. |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 07:47:27 PM · #4 |
I'm never happy with the sharpening in lightroom. Due to the glory of non-destructive edits you are always working with a mega resolution file but sharpening should be done relative to the smaller exported size. You can sharpen on export but it doesn't give you a preview and your options are very limited.
I end up just opening most photos in photoshop to do the scale and sharpen which seems like a waste of time.
Anyone know of a better workflow? |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 07:50:10 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by bhuge:
Anyone know of a better workflow? |
program or actual steps of PP. if its steps, you gotta figure that out on your own. you dont want to be like other people do you? you should want to stand out, be seperate from the croude.
if its the program. i got nothin... |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 08:01:09 PM · #6 |
I'll be the dissenting opinion... I use Lr 3.6, and I have my default process set up per camera. I set the default sharpening to be conservative, yielding smooth but detailed results from the sharpest images. I can tweak this to be more aggressive if needed, but I rarely do. I find that Lr's sharpening is pretty much all I need for my high-resolution files. In most cases I don't even have to think about sharpening or spend an extra second doing it because it is done by default.
For files that will be reduced and published, I can take two approaches. The first is to just resize and sharpen using Lr upon export, and the second, used when I want to optimize carefully for each image (e.g. challenge entries) is to export full size and do stepwise resize in Ps, with sharpening strategically applied.
Message edited by author 2012-01-06 20:02:00.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2012 08:02:22 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by ScooterMcNutty:
Originally posted by bhuge:
Anyone know of a better workflow? |
program or actual steps of PP. if its steps, you gotta figure that out on your own. you dont want to be like other people do you? you should want to stand out, be seperate from the croude.
if its the program. i got nothin... |
I'm asking about equivalent steps the save time. I know how I want it to look and I get the results I want, but the method of jumping into PS is wasted effort. LR has a sharpen that does exactly the same thing as PS, but I don't know how to use it in LR on the downsampled image which makes it worthless. The only way I can get it look equivalent is to jack up the sharpen pixel size to be the inverse of the ratio of how much I'm going to downsample on export. Talk about a pain in the ass, it's easier to just run it through PS. |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 09:48:39 PM · #8 |
I think it depends on the images. Some do well sharpened in Lr and some do significantly better in Ps.
Some things to consider:
· Lr (and Aperture?) make non-destructive edits.
· 100% preview is the way to go in Lr...otherwise it won't show the noise reduction correctly, etc
· Remember to use the masking and detail sliders.
· Ps offers unparalleled control with the ability to use multiple layers and blending modes (sharpen the darks one amount, sharpen the lights another, eg)
That being said, I use Lr mostly for its non-destructive power and ease of workflow. |
|
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: 08/16/2025 03:56:21 AM EDT.
