Posted by Tom Nevesely on October 11, 2007 at 4:19 PM
I'm curious how people sharpen their images when making prints. I use Marc Adamus' sharpening technique for my web images (thanks Marc! ) but when I print it's usually a shot in the dark.
Currently I use the focal blade plugin
http://www.thepluginsite.com/products/photowiz/focalblade/index.htm
for my print sharpening using their suggested settings. When I print on my Epson R1800 on 13x19" Luster the results are generally fine but when I print on 8 1/2 x 11 paper the picture is over sharpened and just this past week I had a couple large prints made (20x30") and they too were over sharpened. The large prints cost me $40 a piece so it's not too much fun.
I still use USM along with some high pass sharpening, but will oftentimes use multiple sharpening layers with different settings depending on the image, and then mask off the areas of smooth gradation when appropriate. Every print requires something different, so I prefer not to do a one pass global approach. Also, sharpening needs vary depending on print size, so that needs to be taken into account as well. It's a bit of a game, and certainly requires some finesse.
Posted by Jim Jirka on October 11, 2007 at 6:29 PM
I use photokit sharpener. for prints you size them first and then run the appropriate sharpening technique depending on printer resolution, 180dpi, 240dpi, 360dpi ....
It works for me.
for your prints at different sizes the sharpening would be done on each print size you have, 8-1/2 x 11, 13 x 19, 20 x 30. it would be by finished print size, not globally for the master.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on October 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM
I was under the impression that if I print at 8x12" @ 300dpi, or 12x18" @ 300dpi, the sharpening would be the same because they are still the same resolution just a different print size? Am I incorrect?
Posted by Dan Borzynski on October 12, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Tom, to get to the same endpoint, the answer to your question is yes, no and maybe. Let's run through a few scenarios.
You have created a file at 12x18, 300 dpi, so the file is 3600x5400 pixels. We'll keep the 300 dpi constant. Now crop out a section of it that measures 8x12, or 2400x3600 pixels. To get the same sharpened end result, you would apply exactly the same sharpening settings.
Now suppose you started with an 8x12, or 2400 by 3600 pixels. To get your 12 by 18 at 3600x5400 pixels, you would need to interpolate the image up a bit. In any interpolation up method, whether in PS, Genuine fractals, or other program, some sharpness will be lost. So now to get to the same degree of sharpness as your smaller print, you have to sharpen as you normally would for that smaller print and add in a little bit more to take into account the losses in going up.
Now suppose you started with the 12x18 at 3600 x 5400. Instead of cropping to get an 8x12, now you want to actually reduce the size of the print by interpolation down to 8x12, or 2400 x 3600, rather than by cropping as in the first print. The amount of USM you need to apply will actually be less.
Why? Keeping in mind that it is 1 am here, hopefully this will make some sense. As you shrink a print, the small defects that lead your brain to believe an image is not sharp also shrinks, fooling your brain into believing that it really is sharp. The problems are still there, but you just can't see them. There is no sense in applying the same amount of sharpening as you did the larger print since that will bring them out.
Try again on shrinking the print. You stand 4 feet from a print. In your field of vision, this is your smaller print (the 8x12). It looks sharp, or at least you don't need to use a lot of USM. Now stand 2 feet away. The print is now bigger in your field of vision (the 12x18). Suddenly, your realize this needs more USM, because you can now see details, or their fuzzy presence better.
I especially notice the lesser amounts of USM when I am printing 4x5 scans. Even from a flatbed scan, there is a lot less sharpening needed at reasonable print sizes (under 16x20). It is not because I have a great flatbed, or that it is better than my 35 scanner, but it is because to get an 8x10, I am massively shrinking the file. This has the net effect of hiding the slightly blurred imperfections in the scan, so less USM is needed. Going the other way, from a 35mm to 16x20, greatly magnifies the defects in the scan. I would have to apply more USM to recover the lost sharpness from the magnified defects. (I know, this is too much to be asking from a 35 mm from - just humor me)
Hopefully this makes at least some vague amount of sense. If not, I'll try again when it is not 1 am.
Posted by Bill Chambers on October 12, 2007 at 9:03 AM
I use PK Sharpener, and have been EXCEEDINGLY happy with the results. You sharpen in stages, and as Jim mentioned, the final sharpening is performed at output size. In addition to sharpening, it also has other tools that will allow you to smooth, blur, and selectively sharpen using the Brush tool. Excellent program.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 12, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Sharpening varies by image and size. I do a multi pass USM method which is working well for me. Unfortunately, the way that it works for me, I don't think I could just record it as an action and call it a day.
First I adjust the image size so that the image so that it will be 240dpi at the print dimensions. This could mean down res for 8X10 and up res for 12x18. This is working fine on my R1800.
How I apply the first step of USM depends on the image size. This builds the basis and creates some texture.
for 8X10 I do 150, 0.3, 0
for 12X18 I do 150, 0.4-0.5, 0
The second step depends more on the content of the image. If it includes alot of sky, I mask off that portion of the image. If the USM starts to create grain, I'll set the threshold at 1. If not, threshold is set to 0. Radius does vary a bit for print size, but it is usually 0.5-0.6
75,0.6,1
Finally, I put a finishing USM on the image. If I applied a mask before the previous step, I leave it in place. This USM is almost always:
30,1,1
I watch for areas that can't take the contrast increase. Most often here that would be snow covered branches. The snow gets blasted to 255,255,255 and lose the slight color they normally have.
Things usually look a little sharper on screen than would be ideal, but the prints usually turn out just right.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on October 12, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Thank you all for your feedback.
Dan, your explanation makes sense to me. Thank you!
Bill and Jim, I've just downloaded the demo version of PK Sharpener. It looks promising and I will play around with it this weekend.
Mel and Joel , thanks for sharing your techniques. They sound similar, at least the concept of them. I will try this "old fashioned" way out and see how it works for me.
Posted by Wim Reyns on October 14, 2007 at 7:59 AM
Tom, i suggest you also have a look at NIK Sharpener Pro, i've been using it with great success.
Posted by Don Kates on October 14, 2007 at 9:07 AM
I too like NIK Sharpener Pro. Unfortunately, it's not compatible with CS3 and Intel based Macs. I've been using PK Sharpener with great results which is compatible.
Posted by Tom Nevesely on October 15, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Thanks Wim and Don. I will download the demo of NIK and compare.
Posted by Rod Barbee on October 17, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Another vote for PK Sharpener. I've been very happy with it as well. Plus you can call it up in actions and use it in batches. Very handy when you need to prep a lot of images for a web gallery, programs, or publication projects.
Discussion
11 repliesCurrently I use the focal blade plugin
http://www.thepluginsite.com/products/photowiz/focalblade/index.htm
for my print sharpening using their suggested settings. When I print on my Epson R1800 on 13x19" Luster the results are generally fine but when I print on 8 1/2 x 11 paper the picture is over sharpened and just this past week I had a couple large prints made (20x30") and they too were over sharpened. The large prints cost me $40 a piece so it's not too much fun.
It works for me.
for your prints at different sizes the sharpening would be done on each print size you have, 8-1/2 x 11, 13 x 19, 20 x 30. it would be by finished print size, not globally for the master.
You have created a file at 12x18, 300 dpi, so the file is 3600x5400 pixels. We'll keep the 300 dpi constant. Now crop out a section of it that measures 8x12, or 2400x3600 pixels. To get the same sharpened end result, you would apply exactly the same sharpening settings.
Now suppose you started with an 8x12, or 2400 by 3600 pixels. To get your 12 by 18 at 3600x5400 pixels, you would need to interpolate the image up a bit. In any interpolation up method, whether in PS, Genuine fractals, or other program, some sharpness will be lost. So now to get to the same degree of sharpness as your smaller print, you have to sharpen as you normally would for that smaller print and add in a little bit more to take into account the losses in going up.
Now suppose you started with the 12x18 at 3600 x 5400. Instead of cropping to get an 8x12, now you want to actually reduce the size of the print by interpolation down to 8x12, or 2400 x 3600, rather than by cropping as in the first print. The amount of USM you need to apply will actually be less.
Why? Keeping in mind that it is 1 am here, hopefully this will make some sense. As you shrink a print, the small defects that lead your brain to believe an image is not sharp also shrinks, fooling your brain into believing that it really is sharp. The problems are still there, but you just can't see them. There is no sense in applying the same amount of sharpening as you did the larger print since that will bring them out.
Try again on shrinking the print. You stand 4 feet from a print. In your field of vision, this is your smaller print (the 8x12). It looks sharp, or at least you don't need to use a lot of USM. Now stand 2 feet away. The print is now bigger in your field of vision (the 12x18). Suddenly, your realize this needs more USM, because you can now see details, or their fuzzy presence better.
I especially notice the lesser amounts of USM when I am printing 4x5 scans. Even from a flatbed scan, there is a lot less sharpening needed at reasonable print sizes (under 16x20). It is not because I have a great flatbed, or that it is better than my 35 scanner, but it is because to get an 8x10, I am massively shrinking the file. This has the net effect of hiding the slightly blurred imperfections in the scan, so less USM is needed. Going the other way, from a 35mm to 16x20, greatly magnifies the defects in the scan. I would have to apply more USM to recover the lost sharpness from the magnified defects. (I know, this is too much to be asking from a 35 mm from - just humor me)
Hopefully this makes at least some vague amount of sense. If not, I'll try again when it is not 1 am.
First I adjust the image size so that the image so that it will be 240dpi at the print dimensions. This could mean down res for 8X10 and up res for 12x18. This is working fine on my R1800.
How I apply the first step of USM depends on the image size. This builds the basis and creates some texture.
for 8X10 I do 150, 0.3, 0
for 12X18 I do 150, 0.4-0.5, 0
The second step depends more on the content of the image. If it includes alot of sky, I mask off that portion of the image. If the USM starts to create grain, I'll set the threshold at 1. If not, threshold is set to 0. Radius does vary a bit for print size, but it is usually 0.5-0.6
75,0.6,1
Finally, I put a finishing USM on the image. If I applied a mask before the previous step, I leave it in place. This USM is almost always:
30,1,1
I watch for areas that can't take the contrast increase. Most often here that would be snow covered branches. The snow gets blasted to 255,255,255 and lose the slight color they normally have.
Things usually look a little sharper on screen than would be ideal, but the prints usually turn out just right.
Dan, your explanation makes sense to me. Thank you!
Bill and Jim, I've just downloaded the demo version of PK Sharpener. It looks promising and I will play around with it this weekend.
Mel and Joel , thanks for sharing your techniques. They sound similar, at least the concept of them. I will try this "old fashioned" way out and see how it works for me.