I know how to sharpen and saturate my images for web presentation. When I do the same things to my full sized tiffs, (saturate, and sharpen to taste). They always look right to my eye on my monitor. When I get them printed, sometimes they are heavily over saturated, and sharpened. Back when I shot jpeg, and used unsharp mask in Nikon Capture, this was not an issue. Now I use CS2, and shoot raw. Since using CS2's unsharp mask, I have regularly sharpened to 200% or more with between 1-1.5, and 1 for the other two adjustments. This looks fine to me when opened up and viewed at 100% They look a little crunchy while in photoshop though. I thought they needed to be to print sharp? I was just wondering what some of the most common values for unsharp mask people usually use, and if mine are too high. Also, do images pp for web presentation generally need to be toned down a bit in saturation for printing? I use an on line lab for my prints right now. So I don't have the flexibility to preview the results. I am strongly considering a move to West Coast Imaging, for the proofing services they provide. It's just that having not sold much of my work yet, makes it hard to incure that initial expense.
Thanks for any help,
Chris
Posted by Andreas Resch on August 25, 2008 at 5:46 AM
Hi Chris!
I'm not an expert on printing but in the past I've seen special techniques for print sharpening. You might want to look at these two things (I don't know more at the moment).
Posted by John Mumaw on August 25, 2008 at 7:12 AM
Can you post a link to an image of yours that you've had problems with?
Which printing service are you using? I doubt it's their problem, but who knows.
You have the ability to proof your images yourself in CS2. This simple tutorial will help get you started.
Note that when you sharpen an image, you rarely need to sharpen the entire scene (e.g. skies). Learning to selectively sharpen the areas that need it by creating a duplicate layer and then using a layer mask to 'erase' the sharpening will almost always give you better results.
Posted by Robert Fisher on August 25, 2008 at 9:18 AM
John's right. Selective sharpening is often a good idea.
An amount of 200% seems high. Even with the lower Radius and Threshold.
Have you ever tried High Pass Sharpening? It's a much more subtle approach than USM and I find produces better results. Since it's done on a separate layer (USM can be done on a separate layer too) you can make the High Pass layer a mask and then adjust the intensity of sharpening by using the Brush tool to selectively and gradually reduce the effect in some areas. The High Pass method is really quite elegant.
Posted by David Bostedo on August 25, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Just a couple of notes :
-- There aren't really and standard values for USM; I've used everything from 0.2 to 2 radius and 100 % to 400%. It really depends on the image size, resolution, and type and level of detail.
-- I've heard great things about PhotoKit Sharpener, but I've seen Jeff Schewe (who was involved in the development of PhotoKit Sharpener) quoted as claiming that there's really no great way to judge sharpening of a print on your screen - you just have to print it and see.
-- Sharpness also depends on the paper you're using, so the same image might need two different settings depending on surface.
-- 50% view I think gives a better impression of what the print will look like, but you're correct about the cruchiness. Ink drop spreading in the paper will tend to change apparent sharpness.
Posted by Greg Cope on August 25, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Chris, as for the saturation issue, check you color management. I'm guessing (and this is only a guess) perhaps when you switched from jpg to raw, you also possible switched your color workspace. Its always a good idea to soft proof as others suggested, and make sure you send your file to the printer in and with the appropriate color profile.
I wish there were a formula for sharpening for print. Depending upon where you get your prints, some services will suggest you do not sharpen for print as their interpolation of your file for printing will "do it for you". I've always been skeptical of this (and in viewing several products from a few different services feel I have good reason to be skeptical) - that is one of the nice features of WCI (and Aspen Creek Photo - if you're wary of switching to WCI, give ACP a try as they are a bit cheaper) in that you can interpolate and do a final 'output sharpening' yourself, giving you a great deal of control over the final print.
Finally, if you have the time and money, regardless of what printing service you use I'd suggest doing several small cropped test prints to see how much sharpening is needed for certain photos with that service.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on August 25, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Sharpening for print is probably one of the most misunderstood aspects of post processing. The radius you need for print depends on your monitor's resolution, the image dpi, and the final print resolution. The amount of sharpening is pretty much "to taste", but keep in mind that a typical image sharpened for printing will look real crunchy on screen. The best screen view to see the effects of sharpening on your image is at 25%, 50%, 100%, 200% and so one. Everything else gives an interpolated representation of the effect and is not what you will see in the print.
If you really want to understand sharpening, get a copy of Deke McClelland's DVD on the subject published by Lynda.com. He goes into crazazy detail on the subject for 8 hours. Your brain will be mush if you watch it, but you will know sharpening.
Posted by David Senesac on August 25, 2008 at 5:33 PM
These last few years as digital cameras and DSLRs have made their appearance with the accompanying massive numbers of new Photoshop and other editing program users, I have seen considerable prints hanging in galleries and art shows where sharpening is overdone, all too evident. Such oversharpening does tend to make an image printed too large for the amount of detail in a print file, appear sharper than it really is. Especially when viewing from a distance. However the artifacts so created tend to be rather obvious up closer to an experienced eye, creating detail where none actually existed. That is especially true for areas of smooth hues and gradients and some specific colors like yellow golds that becomes splotchy orange and greens. All this also plays to another criticism I often have when seeing other's printed work in galleries that a fair number are printed larger than the available detail warants.
As others have noted above, there is no general single formula for sharpening, as each situation of image detail, nature of subject, print size, dpi, type of printer, type of scanner, scanner sharpening settings, etc. Unfortunately many times, one reads the advice of supposed experts that tend to offer real numbers for sharpening for general use that merely reflect their own limited circumstances. Ditto for overgeneralized usage of canned sharpening applications. If you are using a radius of 1.0 to 1.5 and sharpening of 200%, that immediately tells me you are starting with a rather soft image.
Many consumer digital cameras today advertise major pixel numbers through optics that deliver less. Thus all the many valid web conversations of say how an 8mp DSLR with larger optics and sensors is way better than a tiny 8mp miniature digicamera. So the person unsharp masking a captured file in the later is going to need to start with a larger radius than the former. Likewise for those scanning film, someone receiving a 100mb drum scan from a 35mm color slide is going to need a larger radius than someone that received a 25mb scan because the 100mb scan is overkill for the possible image detail possible. If one is starting with a raw file that more closely optically captures all the pixels available, or with film have a drum scan made at a scan frequency that captures available detail, the result need not be sharpened with such wide radii. Typically my own large format Provia drum scanned at about 2400 ppi, for 300mb RGB files only needs radii of 0.3 or 0.4. Anything more on sharply captured subject is just creating pseudo garbage. And my soft full raw captured digital images from my tiny 7mp Coolpix requres radii from even sharpest captures from 0.5 to 0.7. Also once one initially unsharp masks their largest processed image size and then downsizes, subsequent unsharp masking radii ought be more like the minimal 0.2 to 0.4 with percentages less the less the downsize ratio.
Wow, lots of detailed and informative responses. Thank you everyone, I appreciate that.
Kelly, my brain already has turned to mush!
I currently use a 10mp Nikon D200, with an 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 lense. Not a pro level set-up. I did have a lot of soft images when I started out, but think I am getting the most out of my equipment these days. I use a tripod, and a cable release, and try to be aware of wind and stuff. I think maybe David is on to something. I might be getting caught up in an effort to get my images as crisp as possible while causing some other unwanted things to happen. Maybe I should chill out about that a little. I do use selective sharpening. I just use the lasso tool to isolate the rest of the image from the sky, or large bodies of water, and then apply my USM. I hate to admit it, but I don't do layer masks. I know I should learn more pp if I want to be more serious about my imaging. It just seems a little overwhelming, at least to me. I am so impressed with everyone that seems to have the apptitude for all this computer stuff. I sometimes wonder if I do. I hate to admit that cause I tend to think I'm a fairly smart guy. I'm just not a big enough "technogeek" no offense intended.
Thanks a bunch,
Chris
Posted by Dan Borzynski on August 25, 2008 at 10:48 PM
If you are having quickie prints being made locally, there is a good chance they are making some automated adjustment to "improve" them. The lab tech will probably look at you funny if you ask about any sharpening being applied or if you need to assign or delete a colorspace profile to them. It can be ugly...
Discussion
9 repliesThanks for any help,
Chris
I'm not an expert on printing but in the past I've seen special techniques for print sharpening. You might want to look at these two things (I don't know more at the moment).
*) Pixelgenius Photokit Sharpener ... http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/
*) TLR Professional Sharpening Toolkit (free - donation possible) ... http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRProfessionalSharpeningToolkit.htm
Hope I could help a bit.
Cheers ... Andreas.
Which printing service are you using? I doubt it's their problem, but who knows.
You have the ability to proof your images yourself in CS2. This simple tutorial will help get you started.
Note that when you sharpen an image, you rarely need to sharpen the entire scene (e.g. skies). Learning to selectively sharpen the areas that need it by creating a duplicate layer and then using a layer mask to 'erase' the sharpening will almost always give you better results.
An amount of 200% seems high. Even with the lower Radius and Threshold.
Have you ever tried High Pass Sharpening? It's a much more subtle approach than USM and I find produces better results. Since it's done on a separate layer (USM can be done on a separate layer too) you can make the High Pass layer a mask and then adjust the intensity of sharpening by using the Brush tool to selectively and gradually reduce the effect in some areas. The High Pass method is really quite elegant.
-- There aren't really and standard values for USM; I've used everything from 0.2 to 2 radius and 100 % to 400%. It really depends on the image size, resolution, and type and level of detail.
-- I've heard great things about PhotoKit Sharpener, but I've seen Jeff Schewe (who was involved in the development of PhotoKit Sharpener) quoted as claiming that there's really no great way to judge sharpening of a print on your screen - you just have to print it and see.
-- Sharpness also depends on the paper you're using, so the same image might need two different settings depending on surface.
-- 50% view I think gives a better impression of what the print will look like, but you're correct about the cruchiness. Ink drop spreading in the paper will tend to change apparent sharpness.
I wish there were a formula for sharpening for print. Depending upon where you get your prints, some services will suggest you do not sharpen for print as their interpolation of your file for printing will "do it for you". I've always been skeptical of this (and in viewing several products from a few different services feel I have good reason to be skeptical) - that is one of the nice features of WCI (and Aspen Creek Photo - if you're wary of switching to WCI, give ACP a try as they are a bit cheaper) in that you can interpolate and do a final 'output sharpening' yourself, giving you a great deal of control over the final print.
Finally, if you have the time and money, regardless of what printing service you use I'd suggest doing several small cropped test prints to see how much sharpening is needed for certain photos with that service.
If you really want to understand sharpening, get a copy of Deke McClelland's DVD on the subject published by Lynda.com. He goes into crazazy detail on the subject for 8 hours. Your brain will be mush if you watch it, but you will know sharpening.
As others have noted above, there is no general single formula for sharpening, as each situation of image detail, nature of subject, print size, dpi, type of printer, type of scanner, scanner sharpening settings, etc. Unfortunately many times, one reads the advice of supposed experts that tend to offer real numbers for sharpening for general use that merely reflect their own limited circumstances. Ditto for overgeneralized usage of canned sharpening applications. If you are using a radius of 1.0 to 1.5 and sharpening of 200%, that immediately tells me you are starting with a rather soft image.
Many consumer digital cameras today advertise major pixel numbers through optics that deliver less. Thus all the many valid web conversations of say how an 8mp DSLR with larger optics and sensors is way better than a tiny 8mp miniature digicamera. So the person unsharp masking a captured file in the later is going to need to start with a larger radius than the former. Likewise for those scanning film, someone receiving a 100mb drum scan from a 35mm color slide is going to need a larger radius than someone that received a 25mb scan because the 100mb scan is overkill for the possible image detail possible. If one is starting with a raw file that more closely optically captures all the pixels available, or with film have a drum scan made at a scan frequency that captures available detail, the result need not be sharpened with such wide radii. Typically my own large format Provia drum scanned at about 2400 ppi, for 300mb RGB files only needs radii of 0.3 or 0.4. Anything more on sharply captured subject is just creating pseudo garbage. And my soft full raw captured digital images from my tiny 7mp Coolpix requres radii from even sharpest captures from 0.5 to 0.7. Also once one initially unsharp masks their largest processed image size and then downsizes, subsequent unsharp masking radii ought be more like the minimal 0.2 to 0.4 with percentages less the less the downsize ratio.
Kelly, my brain already has turned to mush!
I currently use a 10mp Nikon D200, with an 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 lense. Not a pro level set-up. I did have a lot of soft images when I started out, but think I am getting the most out of my equipment these days. I use a tripod, and a cable release, and try to be aware of wind and stuff. I think maybe David is on to something. I might be getting caught up in an effort to get my images as crisp as possible while causing some other unwanted things to happen. Maybe I should chill out about that a little. I do use selective sharpening. I just use the lasso tool to isolate the rest of the image from the sky, or large bodies of water, and then apply my USM. I hate to admit it, but I don't do layer masks. I know I should learn more pp if I want to be more serious about my imaging. It just seems a little overwhelming, at least to me. I am so impressed with everyone that seems to have the apptitude for all this computer stuff. I sometimes wonder if I do. I hate to admit that cause I tend to think I'm a fairly smart guy. I'm just not a big enough "technogeek" no offense intended.
Thanks a bunch,
Chris