Sharpen Filter help
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
shaneoid
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:37 am
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Contact:
Sharpen Filter help
Hello, this is my first official post. I'd like to have some input considering the finishing touches to a picture. I use the 'Smart Sharpen' feature on Photoshop to enhance my photos, amongst other features. I wonder if the filter makes the picture look too grainy? I have included an original vs. finished sample here, though a 'grainy' effect is more apparent with blurred backgrounds. Any body else use this filter and what have any advice?
Hi shaneoid, welcome aboard!
In PS the most useful sharpening tool is Unsharp mask because it is regulable, you can play with 3 parameters to optimize the effect, in partiicular radius and threshold allows you to control the point when the background noise is sharpned.
You can also apply a noise filter before sharpenning, it would allow you to apply a more agressive sharpening without increaing noise. There are also third part plugins like DeNoise or Noise Ninja that are very popular but I have no experience with them.
Of course a less noisy original image is allways the best beguinning.
In PS the most useful sharpening tool is Unsharp mask because it is regulable, you can play with 3 parameters to optimize the effect, in partiicular radius and threshold allows you to control the point when the background noise is sharpned.
You can also apply a noise filter before sharpenning, it would allow you to apply a more agressive sharpening without increaing noise. There are also third part plugins like DeNoise or Noise Ninja that are very popular but I have no experience with them.
Of course a less noisy original image is allways the best beguinning.
Pau
Hi Shane, welcome.
As Pau says, plus, I see from the EXIF you're at 1600ISO. Unfortunately, the noise is the sharpest thing you have. When you sharpen , everything including that gets sharper.
One help can be to reduce the colour noise completely because it tends to show a lot and wont blur things like hairs. Also, it's a bit of a botch, but you can waft the "Blur" tool around all the plain areas to kill the noise. You can also Select all that you care about, and blur the rest.
Ultimately though to get more detail on the subject you need more light, so you can use base iso and a fast shutter - you knew that! Flash and a big diffuser beckons..
As Pau says, plus, I see from the EXIF you're at 1600ISO. Unfortunately, the noise is the sharpest thing you have. When you sharpen , everything including that gets sharper.
One help can be to reduce the colour noise completely because it tends to show a lot and wont blur things like hairs. Also, it's a bit of a botch, but you can waft the "Blur" tool around all the plain areas to kill the noise. You can also Select all that you care about, and blur the rest.
Ultimately though to get more detail on the subject you need more light, so you can use base iso and a fast shutter - you knew that! Flash and a big diffuser beckons..
-
Charles Krebs
- Posts: 5865
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:02 pm
- Location: Issaquah, WA USA
- Contact:
There has been a huge amount written about sharpening in Photoshop (even at least one complete book covering just that subject). The variety of techniques used is mind-boggling.
But the sharpening tools in PS are the most used, by themselves, or with a little additional "help".
\When you start with a noisy image (ISO 1600) and do global sharpening, you will also sharpen and increase the appearance of noise in areas where sharpening is not needed (sky, completely out of focus backgrounds). So it is good to come up with a simple method or two for those situations. The "choices" are almost endless. Generally some noise reduction helps before sharpening, just try to balance it so that you do not overly erode the fine subject detail. Then is is very worthwhile to have a method that applies the sharpening only to the areas desired. This usually involves a duplicate layer. You can sharpen the lower layer so the detail looks as desired. Then use a mask on the upper layer and paint onto it to allow only the desired sharpened portions to "show-through". Another layered approach is to use a high pass filter (Filter>Other>High Pass) in the top layer. Set the blending mode to "overlay". You can change the opacity of this top layer to weaken the effect. (and/or you can change blending mode to "Soft Light " or ""Hard Light" to change the effect). This can all be done quickly and easily.
One thing to be careful of is overdoing the noise difference between sections of the picture. If you completely wipe out noise in a large section of the image, but (unavoidably if you with to retain details) have a significantly higher noise level in detailed sections it can look a little strange, especially in a highly magnified image. So some compromise, common sense, and discretion are needed.
But the sharpening tools in PS are the most used, by themselves, or with a little additional "help".
\When you start with a noisy image (ISO 1600) and do global sharpening, you will also sharpen and increase the appearance of noise in areas where sharpening is not needed (sky, completely out of focus backgrounds). So it is good to come up with a simple method or two for those situations. The "choices" are almost endless. Generally some noise reduction helps before sharpening, just try to balance it so that you do not overly erode the fine subject detail. Then is is very worthwhile to have a method that applies the sharpening only to the areas desired. This usually involves a duplicate layer. You can sharpen the lower layer so the detail looks as desired. Then use a mask on the upper layer and paint onto it to allow only the desired sharpened portions to "show-through". Another layered approach is to use a high pass filter (Filter>Other>High Pass) in the top layer. Set the blending mode to "overlay". You can change the opacity of this top layer to weaken the effect. (and/or you can change blending mode to "Soft Light " or ""Hard Light" to change the effect). This can all be done quickly and easily.
One thing to be careful of is overdoing the noise difference between sections of the picture. If you completely wipe out noise in a large section of the image, but (unavoidably if you with to retain details) have a significantly higher noise level in detailed sections it can look a little strange, especially in a highly magnified image. So some compromise, common sense, and discretion are needed.
Welcome aboard Shaneoid!
I concur with Pau. In the english language version of P.S. I think it's called sharpen mask, or something like that. Also, there is something very similar in Gimp (an image manipulation program), which gives good results.
As for a criterion of grainy-ness, this is largely a matter of one's personal preference. What is acceptable/objectionable to you? to your customers?
To me, some residual grainy-ness in an otherwise fine digital photo' is reminiscent of high quality photo-chemical images, or of fine art gallery photography. This type of residual photo-chemical random grain pattern is not nearly as objectionable as a coarse digitized photographic representation, or an over-sharpened but coarse scan/digital photo. On the other hand, there are those who will not tolerate any amount of grainy-ness in a digital photo.
by the way, nice photo of ladybird! it looks alive!
I concur with Pau. In the english language version of P.S. I think it's called sharpen mask, or something like that. Also, there is something very similar in Gimp (an image manipulation program), which gives good results.
As for a criterion of grainy-ness, this is largely a matter of one's personal preference. What is acceptable/objectionable to you? to your customers?
To me, some residual grainy-ness in an otherwise fine digital photo' is reminiscent of high quality photo-chemical images, or of fine art gallery photography. This type of residual photo-chemical random grain pattern is not nearly as objectionable as a coarse digitized photographic representation, or an over-sharpened but coarse scan/digital photo. On the other hand, there are those who will not tolerate any amount of grainy-ness in a digital photo.
by the way, nice photo of ladybird! it looks alive!
-
shaneoid
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2015 2:37 am
- Location: Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear, UK
- Contact:
Thanks everyone for the warm welcome and your tips, I'll be experimenting with everything you've suggested thus far, and I'd never have found Unsharp Mask without you all
I actually didn't know that, thanks for the tipChrisR wrote:
Ultimately though to get more detail on the subject you need more light, so you can use base iso and a fast shutter - you knew that! Flash and a big diffuser beckons..
Thanks Carmen, I suppose from a noobie's perspective I'm wondering just how graininess is received in the photography world, or whatever else is considered a faux-pas in macro photography.Carmen wrote:Welcome aboard Shaneoid!
As for a criterion of grainy-ness, this is largely a matter of one's personal preference. What is acceptable/objectionable to you? to your customers?
To me, some residual grainy-ness in an otherwise fine digital photo' is reminiscent of high quality photo-chemical images, or of fine art gallery photography. This type of residual photo-chemical random grain pattern is not nearly as objectionable as a coarse digitized photographic representation, or an over-sharpened but coarse scan/digital photo. On the other hand, there are those who will not tolerate any amount of grainy-ness in a digital photo.
by the way, nice photo of ladybird! it looks alive!
