"Sharpen"

[molested_cow]

Do you guys use the "Sharpen" tool for your photos?

So I've almost never use it before I switched to digital. Every time I scan my negatives, I just take it as it is in terms of sharpeness. I take it that I am using negative so the scanning may be a little off, and that I am using older lens so it may not be as crisp as the new and expensive ones.

Then I switched to digital and got a relatively not-ancient lens, the 20~35mm AF-D F2.8. I am still not getting those ridiculous eye ball-slicing shots! So I took one of my test shots into photoshop and applied the sharpen tool and wondered, "hmmm, is that why?"

Am I not doing something right with the way I take my photos or am I just the last one on earth to know about this unspoken secret?

 

[Josh66]

I think pretty much everything (everything good, lol) that you see here has been sharpened to some degree.

I sharpen film and digital, though I don't really shoot digital much anymore, and I barely do any sharpening to film (but I still do it, just a little). Digital needs a lot more sharpening to look good than film does, IMO.

With film, I do one pass of USM with very low settings, and maybe one more if I resize (depends on the film/developer - sometimes it needs it, sometimes not). I always did a lot more with digital...

 

[molested_cow]

When scanning film, I also check the unsharpen mask option, but that's about it. Hmmm.... I will wait for more response on digital images.

 

[manaheim]

Keep in mind that the process of converting an analog image to digital has a necessary smoothing effect to avoid stepping and moire patterns. (our analog world that we see anf even the film representations of same are effectively infinite resolution... digital is not.)

Most digital cameras have anti-aliasing filters over the sensors that smooth out the colors so they match up more evenly in a finite-pixel world. This necessitates sharpening to bring back the edges and harder lines. How much you sharpen varies based upon needs, your subject and personal tastes... but in effect... EVERY image that has been converted to digital needs to be sharpened at least a little.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I sharpen all of my shots but only when it's time to resize. I don't shoot film because I'm a compulsive chimper so I can't really comment on that aspect of it.

 

[mikehaugen]

I have heard (and maybe KMH will say something here) that all raw images need [some] sharpening, whereas if you shoot in jpeg it automatically sharpens to some degree in-camera. Probably for reasons stated by Manaheim.

 

[Dusica]

I sharpen all my photos but I can't get those crisp shots I see online every day because my lens is not good enough.

 

[altitude604]

I sharpen most of my shots to some degree. Usually some High Pass Filter though... will only use "Smart Sharpen" as my final step.

 

[analog.universe]

Keep in mind that the amount of sharpness lost to anti-aliasing and A to D is never more than 2 pixels wide or so. Motion of the camera is likely to be more of a factor in most shots... unless you're using a tripod rated at least 5 times the weight of your kit, in its most stable configuration, weighed down from the center, shutter released by remote, mirror lockup enabled, etc etc... The sharpen available in most software is really good getting back what you lost going to digital, and really hit or miss if you have something else reducing sharpness.

Couple cool articles:
Getting the Pixels Right by Thom Hogan
Photography and Shot Discipline by Thom Hogan

 

[manaheim]

Keep in mind that the amount of sharpness lost to anti-aliasing and A to D is never more than 2 pixels wide or so. Motion of the camera is likely to be more of a factor in most shots... unless you're using a tripod rated at least 5 times the weight of your kit, in its most stable configuration, weighed down from the center, shutter released by remote, mirror lockup enabled, etc etc... The sharpen available in most software is really good getting back what you lost going to digital, and really hit or miss if you have something else reducing sharpness.

That would vary a lot by photographer. My shots are rarely lacking sharpness due to camera shake because I know the settings I need given the light conditions.

BTW, anti-aliasing strength also varies a lot per camera. Nikon got annoyed at people whining at them about the D100 being soft so they put a much weaker anti-alias filter on the D70... actually it may have been the D70S. The resulting images were MUCH sharper out of the camera.

 

[mishele]

Just a Q....
What are the tell tale signs that your image has been over sharpened? I know some things to look for but would love to hear what you guys have to say.

 

[manaheim]

Just a Q....
What are the tell tale signs that your image has been over sharpened? I know some things to look for but would love to hear what you guys have to say.

Halos are the most obvious. Also stepping and moire patterns but you have to go pretty overboard to see that.

The easiest way to learn what damage you can do with sharpening (and to learn how best to use it!) is to zoom in to 100% on your image and then play with the sliders on the various sharpening tools. Push it WAY to the extremes, and them move it around within the space between to see that it looks like.

 

[Derrel]

I use unsharp masking, smart sharpening, and occasionally, I use the Sharpen command, especially for web images. I also quite often apply the Fade command afterwards. Sharpening to remove the softening effects of the camera's anti-aliasing filter is normally my first step, using a high percentage, but a very small pixel radius, such as say 300 % at .22 pixel radius; this sharpening is done to EVERY, single image coming off of my D2x, since that much basic unsharp masking will counteract the softening effect that Nikon deems needs to be deliberately introduced by the camera's anti-aliasing filter, and that degree of softening has been introduced across the entire image, on every shot that camera takes. OTHER CAMERAS have different degrees of anti-aliasing filter strength, so other cameras might require more, or less, unsharp masking to bring the images up to a reasonably sharp level.

Sharpening and sizing for the web and for inkjet printing are quite different.

 

[Drake]

I sharpen all my photos but I can't get those crisp shots I see online every day because my lens is not good enough.

Not true. Any camera with any lens, even the todays 3 or 5 MP phone cameras can look just as sharp as the best DSLR with the sharpest lens after resizing to a typical online resolution, with the longer edge of 600 or 800 pixels.

I shoot only in RAW and apply the standard RAW sharpening in Lightroom (25 I believe). I decide how much more sharpening the image needs when I export it to jpeg, based on the size of the output.

 

[o hey tyler]

I sharpen all my photos but I can't get those crisp shots I see online every day because my lens is not good enough.

Not true. Any camera with any lens, even the todays 3 or 5 MP phone cameras can look just as sharp as the best DSLR with the sharpest lens after resizing to a typical online resolution, with the longer edge of 600 or 800 pixels.

You must not have very discerning eyes.