| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/04/2004 10:03:46 PM · #1 |
I wonder how many people use Unsharp Mask for sharpenning and how many use the high pass method...
Just a question!
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:13:53 PM · #2 |
I use USM. I used HP for awhile but found I didn't like the results, especially when compared side by side.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:16:38 PM · #3 |
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
I do recommend doing it on a duplicate layer and changing the blend mode to luminosity. |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:19:36 PM · #4 |
I use both methods.
It all depends on the shot what looks best.
Most of the time if I use High Pass I use it with "Soft Light"
I find a lot of floral shots look nice with High Pass with all the textures and etc.
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:21:24 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
I do recommend doing it on a duplicate layer and changing the blend mode to luminosity. |
What is C1?
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 10:25:13 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by nicklevy:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
I do recommend doing it on a duplicate layer and changing the blend mode to luminosity. |
What is C1? |
PhaseOne C1 for processing RAW DSLR files.
Phase One |
|
|
|
09/04/2004 11:32:03 PM · #7 |
I use both, but it depends on the image and what I am trying to do with it.
David
|
|
|
|
09/04/2004 11:39:26 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
I do recommend doing it on a duplicate layer and changing the blend mode to luminosity. |
What does setting the blend mode to luminosity do? thanks!
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 11:44:44 AM · #9 |
| USM is what i use most. the result usually come out just the way i want them to |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 11:48:33 AM · #10 |
Can someone please define the high pass method or point out a good tutorial or web site that explains it?
For those using C1 for RAW file processing, do you think it's better than PS and does it give better control over processing overall? |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 11:51:40 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Can someone please define the high pass method or point out a good tutorial or web site that explains it?
For those using C1 for RAW file processing, do you think it's better than PS and does it give better control over processing overall? |
Luminous Landscape has a great tutorial on High-Pass Sharpening.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 01:44:42 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 02:51:45 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
For those using C1 for RAW file processing, do you think it's better than PS and does it give better control over processing overall? |
I like the results better than using the Canon software. I have PSE2, so I cannot say if the raw converter for PS is better.
You can't do any spot editing with C1, so if you want to do any of that, you need a program like PS. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 02:53:40 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
I do recommend doing it on a duplicate layer and changing the blend mode to luminosity. |
What does setting the blend mode to luminosity do? thanks! |
It applies the sharpening to just the lightness details, not the color. Basically you can sharpen a bit more and not get halos. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 03:39:16 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nico_blue:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
I do recommend doing it on a duplicate layer and changing the blend mode to luminosity. |
What does setting the blend mode to luminosity do? thanks! |
It applies the sharpening to just the lightness details, not the color. Basically you can sharpen a bit more and not get halos. |
This sounds functionally similar to the technique of converting to L*a*b color and applying the USM to only the Lightness channel.
I'm not sure if your method of blending the duplicate (sharpened) layer is DPC-legal for challenges, though, I'm can't remember that specific issue being discussed. Seems like it might be OK for Advanced editing challenges, but not for Basic editing ones.
I admit to being lazy and using USM on the RGB just like I've been doing since PS 2.0 ... I just vary the settings to suit the image, and often use less than other people do.
Message edited by author 2004-09-05 15:42:54. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 03:46:21 PM · #16 |
I use USM without exception - though on a particularly important image I will use it on a duplicate layer, at least. Have no knowledge of High Pass method.
Near-rigid standard settings are .6/100/5, for almost all my work. A radius of 1 shows up at pixel-level, and affects prints. Anything that isn't sharp enough after that just isn't a good enough shot :-)
E
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 03:50:55 PM · #17 |
I use USM, low settings (.4 / 103 / 13 ) and adjust the settings if they're not adequate for the photo. I prefer a slightly soft look to one that looks "oversharpened". I always make sure all my digits in any number add to "4", for no good reason whatsoever, except that it gives a bit of stability to life :)
The beta PSP9 has an option under USM, "Lightness channel only" - I'm assuming that's like splitting the image into channels, sharpening only in the lightness channel, and then recombining the channels. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 04:00:24 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by ursula:
I use USM, low settings (.4 / 103 / 13 ) and adjust the settings if they're not adequate for the photo. I prefer a slightly soft look to one that looks "oversharpened". I always make sure all my digits in any number add to "4", for no good reason whatsoever, except that it gives a bit of stability to life :)
The beta PSP9 has an option under USM, "Lightness channel only" - I'm assuming that's like splitting the image into channels, sharpening only in the lightness channel, and then recombining the channels. |
Your numbering theory is similar to mine, albeit with slightly "softer" numbers than mine : )
Note though that those are for "screen-resolution" photos -- I usually find preint-sized images take a bit more.
That sounds like an excellent feature in PSP ... |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:05:07 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I did use USM, but mostly I do my sharpening now in C1.
|
I thought sharpening was meant to be the very last thing you do, after you have done whatever else it is you want to do with the photo.
How does this work with C1?
Genuine question as I use C1 and love it, so I might investigate sharpening there as currently I do the USM thing in PS.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:10:35 PM · #20 |
(.5/100/4) is my sweet spot for dpc sized images.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:12:14 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by jadin:
(.5/100/4) is my sweet spot for dpc sized images. |
0.3/100/0 works better for most of my shots.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:23:49 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by jadin:
(.5/100/4) is my sweet spot for dpc sized images. |
0.3/100/0 works better for most of my shots. |
That 0 threshold means you are applying the USM effect to all non-identical pixels ... be sure that's what you want to do.
We've all been listing these a bit out of order, at least according to my version of Photoshop, which goes
Percentage
Diameter
Threshold
I typically use about 66%/0.6dia/TH=5, but also faily often apply twice at those settings. I'll go a little higher if needed, and raise the diameter setting to about 1.3 for (larger) print images. For images with smooth flesh-tones or gradients predominating I raise the threashold setting to 7. |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:31:06 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Konador:
Originally posted by jadin:
(.5/100/4) is my sweet spot for dpc sized images. |
0.3/100/0 works better for most of my shots. |
That 0 threshold means you are applying the USM effect to all non-identical pixels ... be sure that's what you want to do.
|
It's worked for me up till now... I find putting the threashold up even 1 or 2 almost nullifies the effects of the sharpening. I must be doing something wrong.
|
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:34:56 PM · #24 |
Nothing wrong with it if it looks good to you!
Are you applying those values to a print-size image, or a 640-pixel entry? |
|
|
|
09/05/2004 07:39:05 PM · #25 |
640 px
For print size I normally use 0.8-1.0 instead of 0.3.
|
|
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: 08/06/2025 08:55:10 AM EDT.
