I'm pretty new to the screening process on ole 1X but I have gone through a few thousand images in my short tenure. I've seen a lot, I mean a lot, of over sharpened images. Nothing will get an image crushed in crew or members screening quicker than this and it's one of the most rudimentary issues in a digital workflow. We notice it within seconds of viewing. Now, I'm not talking about a slight over sharpening, but a major, creating artifacts, harsh edges, halo's kinda USM. It will ruin any great image, and we've seen it do it to a bunch of them.

My guess it's a sharpening after resize that hits most images bad. Probably locked into an action or a workflow that might be automated. Take a good peak at it and see if it really needs it. There's a fine line between blurry and sharp and finding that middle ground can make or break an image.

Dave

It sure is something from the digital era where everybody wants to see pictures which are sharper than is physically possible.

Maybe it would be nice, after consulting the photogs, to show them in this thread as a tutorial? Learning from mistakes is very powerful after all.

Failure to see oversharpening is often a consequence of editing on a badly calibrated monitor. Unsharp Mask works by enhancing the contrast in edges which gives a sharper look. If the monitor doesn't show the contrasts right, it will be hard to detect oversharpening.

/ Jacob

I know that was a problem in the CRT days but do you think it's still an issue in LCD times?

I think Dave has a great point here.

It may be my perception but in my own humble eye, I have noticed a trend toward "super sharp" images. This is of course not a coverall blanket statement but I come from a traditional film background where such techniques were not available, the accepted norm was to see your image through the printed medium or even the projected slide image and one develops an eye for that format. But I have to say that recently not only among the uploads at 1x but across the web there is a tendency to add that extra "zap" or "punch" call it what you will, through oversharpening. It certainly is a trend that I would like to see an end of.

Mal

I really would like to see examples and think this would benefit a lot of folk. I don't do any sharpening at all in PP but on ocassions have had rejection comments that my image is oversharp, it perplexes me and I start to doubt my processing.

Are my images oversharp?, I've no idea.

Please let us compare to see what you mean Dave/Mal.

JP

Is a hard job to reduce super-sized images for websites publishing format of 900 or 800 pixels wide without lose detail. As i use also film, and film are not a medium prepared to be shown in PC monitors have no "sharp" at all when reduced, but in original size you can found ever the minor details. I have to confess in my last image published here in 1X i have to give some sharp and i don´t do that normaly, but i have lot´s of humidity or moisture in lense due the heavy snow and lack some definition in central image area. But i agree some authors have a "heavy hand" in puting sharp in images, and that create tons of artifacts that looks horrible in images. Also, many autors have super-edited images or HDR ones that causes a big lack of detail and creates artifacts in processing, and then the things worst much more they when give more sharp in the end, put in evidence all that imperfections and artifacts.

while i think your point might be valid, those of us who can barely afford new memory cards are about four steps behind and monitor calibration is the not even on our radar.

An example would be nice.

However this issue should be also addressed in the screening section, where more than often people are giving more and more advice to sharpen images.

Many believe that 1x.com crew want super sharp images.

Very interesting topic indeed.

Some examples / comparisons points will help a lot. I must admit that I am never sure about sharpening in my pictures - at least the version edited and compressed for web. I have a very standard monitor with poor resolution and most of the time I have to rely on comparison with other pictures to make sure it is not too much (be it sharpening but also contrast, dark ...)... well I had to - because now I am a litle experienced with my gear. But sometimes yes I encountered harsh edges wit artifacts.

Also some subjects require more or less sharpening. Architecture pictures published here are generally very sharp, but they are from people who are obviously doing it very well. Also seem to me that oversharpening artifacts affect more for color pics (i.e. are more visible)

Thanks Dave for bringing this up. How one "perceives" sharpening is very important for this discussion. If halos are involved then it is easy to see..but when you say hard edges that becomes less clear for me. I just had a look at your photos here at One X. For my eye they are very sharp, tack sharp. I say that in the most positive way. Your photos are crystal clear and sharp. Even though I see them as tack sharp I would never think of any of yours as over sharp.

The first time I opened a digital image on a Nikon 990, I thought it looked miserable because I was so accustomed to my Nikon FE. It looked much too detailed. Of course we get so accustomed to all of this.

Can you share your sharpening process? I ask because I never sharpen the final high resolution file. Instead I do sharpen the resized photo as over time this seems to be what various on-line instruction has advised. It made sense to me because then I have not tampered with the final high resolution file that I might want to do something else to later. I never use in camera sharpening, because I am not sure how will impact on different kinds of images. For example, on a rusty texture it might be okay but then if I move to silk..maybe not. So I leave all the sharpening to the end part of the process. I had the impression that you felt this should be different.

So..can you say what you have used to get the glass and metal in your images sharp without overly so. I did forget to look and see if you use film. I will now.

Thanks again for bringing this up. I think it is an important issue.
Phyllis

There is a section on High Pass filter sharpening in the tutorial section.
http://1x.com/discussions/1636/postprocessing-sharpening-technique-using-highpas/#unread
I have found this method the easiest to use.

Personally, I find one pass of smart filter at the very end (after resizing and before saving) is the best way to go. I find that a radius of about .4 and a strength between 20 and 60 works for almost everything. And I always err on the low side whenever in doubt.

It is easy, but this one leaves artifacts and harsh edges too.

To be honest, I have found that sharpening first and then resizing get a better result and a more natural look than the other way around.

I am sure some software are better at sharpening than others.


I use .3 and around the same strength, but I have found it to be better before resizing though.

Very interesting discussion. Initially I was using the unsharp mask in PS, and adjusting the parameters to suit each image. I always did this after resizing. More recently, on the advice of Ken Rockwell of kenrockwell.com fame, I've been using the smartsharpen with typical parameters of .2 radius and 100%, remove lens blur. I also do this after resizing.

On my original full size images, I never really noticed much difference with the sharpening filters, so I generally leave it alone.

I am also of the opinion that there may be unrealistic expectations of sharpness on many images which don't necessarily require it. Sharpness is part of style, I would think, and style varies depending on the category of image and the personality of the photographer. Actual lens blur or motion blur is one thing, but I do think there are categories of photography (street and documentary come right to mind) where a "normal" or a "film" type of sharpness should be enough and where the digital hyper-sharpness is not necessary. I would hate to see us apply the hyper-sharpness requirement on all images, and I do admit myself to feeling that pressure at times.

Simple answer. Do what I do.

Don't use photoshop. ;-)

Mal - you can't see the irony in this? The heavy fostering of the photoshop crowd and "noise" and "grain" and this and that - that 1X has fostered through the published images.... When I try to get other photogs I meet to come here and join the answer I get back is a variation on the theme "A lot of photoshop and overly processed stuff there".

And according to you, where does it come from ? (I mean here)

Really ? ;-)
(front page...)

Hey all... When I get some time I'll create some over sharp stuff, pass it by the crew and make sure they see what I see and then pass it along to you. I don't want to use members images as that would be inappropriate.

Phyllis asked for my process. It's simple... I open the raw in PS, 16 bit mode. Enlarge (either in PS or use Genuine Fractal) to about a 50mpx in size. Sharpen using USM at 100, 1.0, 0. Sounds like a bunch but on a 30x40 images it isn't that bad. After resize I will either NOT sharpen or use a very small amount if needed... 40, .4, 0 sounds about right. That's about it.

I will also add from random comments I saw in this tread...

Richard, this isn't a "photoshop is the devil" issue or at least I didn't intend it to be. It's a basic digital processing thing. As long as manufacturers put anti aliasing filters in camera's sharpening is needed on a preponderance of images taken. I would love to see CCD sensors come back (my canon 1D was sharp right out of the camera because of it's weak AA filter) but CMOS technology urges manufacturers to use AA filters at pretty strong levels. Also, as for your friends comments... the front page, since I've been on board, has some abundantly PS'd work. A lot of them don't. Compared to other popular photo sites I'd say we're about even with them as far as PS work goes.

It's not just color, It's monotone also.

It's all genre's but some more than others. Nature is probably the largest group hit by this topic.

I'll try to get the samples done in the coming couple weeks.

Dave

@ Dave

I get your point. I was remarking in Mal's comment that there has been a "trend" recently. Now trends don't come from nowhere. And I am just postulating that 1X =could= be responsible to some degree for setting the trend amongst up loaders - it may not be. Just throwing it out there....

I think Ursula made a comment a whole back about how much editing is too much editing - and the answer was "When you notice it".

Maybe it is just because of how I shoot - but I notice editing everywhere..... ;-)

Hey Richard.... didn't mean to come off like an ass and after reading my reply I might have sounded that way. "when you notice it" is a great comment and one I sorta live by. Now, I probably notice it more than Ursula, you notice it more than I do and so on. I sort of look at it this way. If I can see the emotion, intent and not the editing I'll love it. If all I see is a filter it's lost me. Can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. That goes for traditional as well as digital. :D

Peace.

No worries on the arse stuff... I am an expert on it. :-0 You know - if I had more stuff published in the last 10 weeks (ie none) - then maybe I wouldn't feel the need to rant on the forums so much either..... being an arse or otherwise. ;-)

I was speaking with Robert here in Beijing last week and he had been having some chats with some of the photogs here on how hey got the effect that they did. Some would not answer, some would try and dodge - and some would eventually fess up to the tricks they did. I shan't name names - but a certain photog that IMHO is famous for not elaborating sh*t on how he does his shots came up.

What also came up was another photog whose work I like here. In the end he told Robert how he got the effect - using a Nik software filter. Now all I see is that filter when I look at his work. Had I not known, I would have maybe guessed at some trickery - but the scenes and my prejudice of the locale lead me to believe that it was mostly natural. I feel let down now as I will never look at that photogs work again in the same light.

So what is the point of all this rambling? Well I don't want to notice editing. And I don't want to even be left with the belief that =maybe= it happened - as if it ever comes out 'how' - then I will be upset. Like finding out that Santa wasn't real.

So back to sharpening.... well we all know that editing happens. Digital photos done with bayer censors really need it. But what may be a more apt idea then - is the ability to uphold belief in the shot. Like in movies we as viewers make certain assumptions so that we can suspend our cynicism and laws of reality to enjoy the flick. Photography needs to be the same.

Richard. Do you think that the "how" should never be divulged?
Maybe that is why some do not speak of their "secrets".
It is difficult for all of us to keep these prejudices out of our minds when we look at the images from the standpoint of also being one that creates them and what we "think" is the "right" way to do it. This can be the problem with what we show and to what audience we show it to.
Probably the same goes for seeing those artifacts that come up when over sharpening happens. We have a tendency to look at this more carefully since we are acutely aware of this situation in our own work.
I suspect the general art loving public weighs their praise more on content than technical flaws.

What do you use then? I'm asking because of a change I noticed recently in one of your resubmission - not reshoot, but change, and fairly dramatic. It looked like post-processing work, and not that mild. "Photoshop" is used as a term often used to refer to post-processing an image, not only to the software brand.

@ Jerry I agree....

My point about sharing is that it is a c*nt act to not share. What gives.... just share with others on how things are done so they can do it as well.

The issue I am raising is that in movies we all know that there really aren't x wing fighters and death stars. We can suspend belief... the same rings true for photo's.

If a magician makes such a song and dance about keeping secrets - then when they come out (as they will) it is a let down. But if they just explain it as they go along - it adds to the fun and the moment.

Like this guy with his lighting. Class act.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/polvero/

My comment was tongue in cheek. I use Apple Aperture. I make heavy use of the following tools:

- Crop
- Clone/Dust off
- Micro Contrast
- Definition Slider
- Sharpness Slider
- Highlight/shadow sliders

My comment was aimed at - that if you don't expose yourself to the candy factory - then you can't pig out whilst in there. As mentioned it was tongue in cheek. I did the same thing before, I over saturated images. I over purchased gear and lenses and.......

So when I see people who have fallen a foul of these over editing/technical stuffs, I feel glad for my 180 degree turn and return to the most basic of tools to make images. Am I still able to over do things? Yup. But not having the temptation there to start with is a great help! Until I can be trusted of course. ;-)

Does that mean that it was a good change and I will be published now???? Please? Huh? Can I Aunty Urrsula! xxxxx

:-)

Obviously not, especially since it was in the "documentary" category, and I think you of all people should stick to some standards at least! (last part of the sentence is tongue in cheek).

Well I couldn't find the Richard category... you know - that weird place we all laws of nature, politics, science and ethics change to match my own personal stubbom whims. Oh and all photos are excellent and without equal.

I'll leave this as an exercise for the reader to decide if I was being tongue in cheek or not.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

;-)

If you are keeping score it's now Ursula's tongue 1 Richard's cheek 0...


Richard, I though one of the things you disliked so much about the digital de-bayering process was "micro contrast"??

OK. I apologize. Richard, what I said was mean and intended to poke fun at you. I apologize. It's none of my business how you talk or how you edit your pictures, and all that other good stuff.

Now please back to the business at hand, the oversharpening of images. Dave is right, we get a lot of them. There are visible halos around oversharpened images. Two kinds of halos. The 1px halo that you get from straight sharpening (and the pixelation in not contrasty parts), and the larger halos you get from USM processes. Both are bad and often ruin perfectly good images.

Of course it is. I make everyone else's business my business - so it is all fair!

Again back to the seed of the debate - if you don't aim to edit much - then you are less likely to fall into an editiing trap. That's just an obvious comment and not a statement about editing. Just like if you dont try to play sport too much, you are less likely to break your ankle and be hand washing yourself for 2 months as having to sit down to pee. :-)

Well digital images with a bayer sensor WILL need sharpening more than a scan will off the bat. My issue is with how that sharpening 'can' then look - as it often takes the place as dark edge sharpening or the micro contrast that is not real sharpness = but gives the impression of sharpness. And that is harsh to my eye. This is not the fault of digital - but as Dave brought up - how people process. You don't see it in stuff like Mal's.

How's that for a suck up?

Thank you Dave.
Just to clarify. You develop your RAW file, and then back into Photoshop with a TIFF or a PSD file you enalarge it, then sharpen using USM.

The question I have is the enlargement. Your leaving your resolution at 240? I am trying to understand why you are making the files so much bigger. Of course I do not know that you are starting out with - but 30 x 40 inches is gigantic. :) Yet, only 50 mg? So, the enlarging is this because of something in your work requirements? I have Genuine Fractals but I have never used it - it came with a Suite. I always thought it was for tiny files that someone wanted to make bigger.

I am curious about the size of the file and the reason. The sharpening parts sound quite normal especially for that size file. I have only four giga of RAM on a Mac Pro. If I keep the 240 resolution on a file from a 10 megapixel camera the size of the file goes to about 225 megapixels. Big smile..now that is a big file to start out with.

I must add that if I use a good lens and my hand is steady, the picture is sharp out of the camera. With slower and less expensive lens..it simply is not the same.
Thanks Dave..
Phyllis

This I think is the heart of the matter Jerry. Sharpness is only one of many qualities an artistic image should be judged by. Over sharpening can be an artistic effect when used carefully on certain images. But any optimization technique improperly used is going to detract from rather than improve the image.

And then it all comes back to the viewer's perception.

Phil

Hey Phyllis.... Nope I bring it up to 300 dpi also. I shoot with 3 cameras really. Canon 1d MkIII, 1ds MKIII and a brand spanking new (well new to me) Hassy H2D.

I do all my enlarging in GF at 300 dpi and either 2 or 300% enlargement. Then sharpen. The reason I work on big files is that I often make big prints. Also, I sell to a lot of corporate clients who use them as large murals. The minimum size I work all my files up are 30"x40" these days. It use to be 16x20 but I found I needed them bigger. I would much rather have to reduce to make size, then to enlarge after processing and converting to 8 bit.

I have a Mac 8 core with 16gb of ram... Hoping to step it up to 32 soon. Files are typically 500mb+

Should add, I just switched to GF. The new version rocks. Before that I was using photozoom 2 which was pretty good also.

mmmh... this is something I noticed a couple of times indeed. On this one recently:

(f4.0 this one) I wanted to have it much darker and contrasted than the original and the halo came on the edge of the coat, where there is an abrupt difference of DOF. It makes it look like a collage. It is hardly visible on the original format but did not manage to get rid of it on the web size pic

Hi Dave,
In some cases sharpening an image can be very good and creative ... have a look at
http://www.davehillphoto.com/
and how is done
http://www.flickr.com/groups/strobist/discuss/72157594577686705/

What do you think about it?
I love this technique, for some images!!!

A similar effect can be created with PS plug-in "Nik Color Effex Pro" > Tonal Contrast,
where details come out better (without artifacts), if used carefully.

The question is, it acceptable for 1x ?

Hi Ben,

Cannot answer for Dave and 1X crew, but I think that as long as sharpening (or any editing technique) serves the purpose of the image it is OK. BTW the current FP pic #47 on 1X is a good example. Problem to me is when editing is visible though not intentionally, creates artifacts etc... that are obviously not part of the author intention. Now it could be that some trend even well done and mastered are hardly published on 1X (HDR is an example, much less HDR pics here than on other photog forums). But trends change with time. As an example I notice that many "old' pics published onm 1X have added texture to emulate vintage photog (with blemishes and scratches) but this is no more the case right now. I think there is a difference between techniques well employed but not "trendy" on 1X at a given time and technical flaws and/or visible editing which i s anticlimactic.

I have found this book helpful: "Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Fraser, Peachpitt Press, 2007.
He defines a three-part process of pre-sharpening, content sharpening, and post-sharpening. Pre-sharpening and post-sharpening are both done by formula, based on the pixel size of the camera and the DPI of the print or display medium, respectively. Only the content sharpening step is a matter of artistic judgment.

Thank you Dave. :))))
That 16gb of Ram caught my eye. I think I have a similar processor but boy am I lagging on the RAM. Okay, now I understand your justification for making such big files. The Genuine Fractals I have is 6.0 Professional Edition - there may be a newer one available now - I am not sure. When I bought the On One plugin suite it come with the product, and I have not tried it. If I were to use it - is it in any way related to sharpening? I guess I am asking if I did not want to make gigantic files, does it help with lessen things like banding, halos - the nasty stuff? Is it worth learning how to use it for that? I have no need to make bigger files at this point.

This is enlightening. Thanks again..
Phyllis

And here I though GF was just for people to print big who didn't want to bother with MF or LF. Does it really upsize/rez an image so that you can put it on a billboard and not see pixelation?

Good topic, thanks for bringing it to forefront attention. Sharpness, or clarity, is key to a successful production and possibly one of the top factors in photo submissions here. Another good topic I think, while difficult to cover, would be impact of an image. Perhaps too broad to cover, but maybe the crew screeners have some common thoughts or observations?

Look forward to the examples.

Does it (the image) make you pause and do a "double take" when looking at it...... impact.

I agree with the comments above that sharpening can be used for creative purposes, as can any parameter, I guess. How well it is used determines its success. Art is mainly skill. All great art is really superlative skill. Policy has no place in skills, and so neither in art. Don't attempt making policy, I would advise.

In my experience, the "common man" viewer of photographs is readily delighted with sharpness, and readily exclaims to that effect. It reminds me how other graphic arts are often judged, that is by lifelikeness. I would argue that if a photograph is NOT compellingly sharp there had better be a VERY good reason for that.

brose

http://www.brosepix.com

Great thread, this - with some super links. Thanks, guys - and Dave Hill has a new number one fan ;-)

Regarding over sharpened images would anyone agree that this well known photographer over sharpens his images? To me they are.

http://www.davidnoton.com/despatches.php

Yes, I agree. For the photos shown in low res on web. We don't know if his real work is that much sharpened. I don't think so.

No, not for me, they look fine. Image sharpness I guess as with many other photo aspects is highly subjective.

My style tends to have a specific look. I use the Manny (Manuel) Librodo Sharpening Technique or a Bleach Bypass effect. It also depends on the subject and what I'm trying to do for each, specific shot. For example: