Author Topic: Don't USM Sharpen? (Read 6196 times)

StockManiac · « **on:** September 01, 2006, 14:12 »

I have read a lot of threads where posters say that they don't use USM for sharpening.

Why not? What is so bad about USM?

leaf · « **Reply #1 on:** September 01, 2006, 14:31 »

i don't think one has to be so stict as to say NEVER use a tool.

It can however increase the noise, especially when there is significant noise from before. Unsharp mask also does a nasty job of grass.. it genearlly goes overboard while the other parts looks normal.

I use it in slight doses usually.

StockManiac · « **Reply #2 on:** September 01, 2006, 15:17 »

I understand that there are times when you don't want to sharpen. But if you were going to sharpen, would you use USM or some other technique?

leaf · « **Reply #3 on:** September 01, 2006, 15:45 »

hmm well depends on the picture. USM is the easier, so often i am too lazy to bother with anything else. The difference is often insignificant.

Other options, smart sharpend - although i woulnd't recommend it. I tried it on a batch of photos cause i thought it was supposed to be better but the noise it created was HORRIBLE.

perhaps one of the better options is going over into lab color space, selecting JUST the L channel and then sharpening that. That way you are sharpening JUST the luminosity and not any of the colors. However this way takes a little extra work, and you have to flatten the image to do it, so i don't often bother.

chellyar · « **Reply #4 on:** September 01, 2006, 15:48 »

If you're talking about stock, USM is definately a bit of a no-no...

It increases atficacting around edges, increases noise and if you re-size an image after it's been USM'd you're more likely to get jaggies / artifacting. On some details USM can cause blown highlights as it uses increased contrast to give the appearance of sharpness.

Some macro stock agencies (alamy definately, and some others) specifically state that images are not to be sharpened before submission.

Designers should be free to apply their sharpening tool of choice to get the end result they want. If you use USM or another tool you're distorting the original photo, which might reduce the options for the designer to retouch/sharpen/scale the pic.

But... There's always one of those...

If you use USM and then selectively apply it (masking/layer blending) it can be effective at making detail in an image 'pop'. There are also some 'smart sharpening' actions for gimp/PS that selectively apply USM to areas based on some contrast thresholds and other twiddly settings.

And, you can't beat USM as the last step before printing if you're looking for tack sharp looking prints.

And... having said that, my stock work is probably the last place to look for post-processing tips, as I don't edit my microstock pics before I upload them... Cloning of trademarks, cropping and rotation is about my lot really! :-)

Just my 2c as usual...

StockManiac · « **Reply #5 on:** September 01, 2006, 16:52 »

Quote from: chellyar on September 01, 2006, 15:48

Some macro stock agencies (alamy definately, and some others) specifically state that images are not to be sharpened before submission.

Quote from: chellyar on September 01, 2006, 15:48

If you use USM or another tool you're distorting the original photo, which might reduce the options for the designer to retouch/sharpen/scale the pic.

Quote from: chellyar on September 01, 2006, 15:48

And... having said that, my stock work is probably the last place to look for post-processing tips, as I don't edit my microstock pics before I upload them... Cloning of trademarks, cropping and rotation is about my lot really! :-)

chellyar:

What camera do you have? And how are your in-camera settings set for sharpening?

I use a Canon 30D and I can't imagine taking a picture straight out of the camera without sharpening! High end cameras require some sharpening to look "normal". I set my camera to the lowest sharpening setting in-camera (0) and then sharpen post-camera (usually with USM).

IRCrockett · « **Reply #6 on:** September 01, 2006, 17:36 »

Quote from: StockManiac on September 01, 2006, 16:52

What camera do you have? And how are your in-camera settings set for sharpening?

I use a Canon 30D and I can't imagine taking a picture straight out of the camera without sharpening! High end cameras require some sharpening to look "normal". I set my camera to the lowest sharpening setting in-camera (0) and then sharpen post-camera (usually with USM).

While this is generally true the amount and type of sharpening is output dependent. Best to do as little sharpening as possible to allow the user greatest flexibility to tailor sharpening to their desired output.

chellyar · « **Reply #7 on:** September 01, 2006, 23:58 »

Hi-ho...

A 20D, 10D and an old 4Mp 1D... The 20D I have set to +1 on sharpening, everything else 0. The 10D is all at 0. The 1D is set to +2, but then I only use that for sports for a local paper..

I'm shooting with top drawer glass though, the 24-70/2.8 17-40/4 and 70-200/2.8 so contrast/sharpness is very rarely an issue..

If they light is good, or I'm in the studio I rarely feel the need for sharpening outside the very light (0.3x50%x0) USM before sending to the lab / printer.

If you're curious I can put up a couple of full-sized out of the camera images somewhere for you to pixel peep...

Cheers, Chris H.

leaf · « **Reply #8 on:** September 02, 2006, 02:52 »

are you guys shooting jpg?? shame shame :p

CJPhoto · « **Reply #9 on:** September 02, 2006, 03:10 »

I stopped sharpening on the basis that it should be done only one and as the last step by the designer. I have started to sharpen again but only on selective areas and only to a minor amount (i find it brings out detail on brickwork better).

chellyar · « **Reply #10 on:** September 02, 2006, 03:47 »

Quote from: leaf on September 02, 2006, 02:52

are you guys shooting jpg?? shame shame :p

I only shoot raw when I'm doing some types of commision work, which is maybe 10% of what I do. And then I shoot raw+jpeg and generally only use the raw as a safety net, or to increase dynamic range or fix light fall off in large group shots (sports team photos taken with one brolly+strobe is one area I always raw).

The raw vs jpeg thing is quite personal once you get past the happy-snappy crowd, it's a bit like film choice in the old money. For what I do, and the outputs I require the jpeg's I get out of my cameras are more than up to the task.

Some people (not suggesting anyone here..) use raw as a way to get around limitations in lighting and/or technique. They have to adjust the WB and exposure of every image to get it right, rather than learning the craft a bit better in camera.

Some use raw because they've read on a forum that it's the way to fix all manner of ills.

Others legitimately use raw to manager higher dynamic range, and to create more vibrant monochrome or duotone images, (which they then send to 8 bit per colour output devices printers, labs, screens... Duh).

A lot of the 'I don't use raw' crowd simply can't be bothered, and are happy with what they get from jpeg.

For my part, with a lot of what I do I'd have serious workflow and logistic issues with using raw.... In a busy week I'll gain 2500-3000 images, and in raw under Linux there are no good tools that can manage that type of volume in raw effectively/quickly. In jpeg I have a bunch of scripts using a combination of jhead, imagemagick and pnmtools that make the management and archiving of the data quite smooth, and only midly stressful!

For stock; As I said, I shoot jpeg, minimum editing, upload and forget it...

Cheers, Me.