Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Biweekly Shoot Out

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 3, 2004, 11:37 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

I think you set your radius too high in USM. Since the larger the radius, the thicker the line of sharpening, you ended up with what appears to be oversharpened. You might try .3 radius with 150% sharpening for lower resolution photos such as used for posting here. Sometimes, upping the threshold a little will beall that'sneeded to fine tune it.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 8:59 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

Yep, I think that I agree with you that my USM parameters might have been a bit aggressive. I found these 2 sites that also have a very good discussion of USM applications in sharpening and contrast enhancement:

http://www.bythom.com/sharpening.htm
http://www.lonestardigital.com/usm_fade.htm
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 4:32 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

geoffs wrote:
Quote:
I found these 2 sites that also have a very good discussion of USM applications in sharpening and contrast enhancement:
Both sites have good information, but the first site is a bit misleading because the person apparently doesn't work with 16-bit pictures. With those, the radius has to be much higher. Regardless, the necessary minimum radius is extremely dependent on both resolution and picture content, so start with the minimum, but don't think of it as any kind of rule--it isn't.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 6:42 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
digcamfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,422
Default

Great contribution

Especially nice is the tight DOF which puts some drops almost tack sharp and some almost an obscure line.

It reminds a bit of chocolate sculptures with sugar sprinkles.


digcamfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 6:59 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

bcoultry wrote:
Quote:
Both sites have good information, but the first site is a bit misleading because the person apparently doesn't work with 16-bit pictures. With those, the radius has to be much higher. Regardless, the necessary minimum radius is extremely dependent on both resolution and picture content, so start with the minimum, but don't think of it as any kind of rule--it isn't.
Sure, I understand completely that there is no one-size-fits-all procedure for applying unsharp mask. However, it is a good general rule of thumb to start off with less and apply only as much as needed in increments.

The other guidelines in the first article seem to be well taken in my opinion- an obviously inexpert one :-)

The second site talks about a fade unsharp mask command. I assume this is available in PS, but it is not available (so far as I can tell) in PSE2. However, I am guessing that this can be done in PSE2 by creating a new layer that is a duplicate of the background layer, applying unsharp mask to that layer, and then adjusting the opacity of the sharpening layer to suit. I tried this exact procedure in PSE2 with very good results.

Here is yet another site I found with some more technical detail on unsharp mask:

http://www.websupergoo.com/helpie/so...nsharpmask.htm
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 7:00 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
geoffs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,025
Default

Digcamfan --> thanks for the compliments!
geoffs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 7, 2004, 8:10 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

Quote:
I assume this is available in PS, but it is not available
Photoshop has a huge amount more than Elements does, but the latter has a lot of power all on its own. Eventually, if you keep going and going with photography, you'll want to have the big beast itself, but in my opinion, it's better to learn Elements thoroughly first, not doing as I did, which was to go for Photoshop right out of the gate. I spent an entire year being intimidated, another year believing I knew what I was doing, then finally started learning my way around it. I've been using Photoshop for six years and I still don't use more than half its power.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2004, 8:06 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
iblaineman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 152
Default

I really like this picture also. It always amazes me that you guys can look at a picture and say what photoshop work has been done on it.
iblaineman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2004, 9:13 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,652
Default

iblaineman wrote:
Quote:
It always amazes me that you guys can look at a picture and say what photoshop work has been done on it.
The reason we can do this is because we're constantly doing things to photos with Photoshop. After a while, we recognize the steps needed to produce a specific effect. It's really no different from a person who's proficient in the darkroom being able to say what methods were probably used to come up witha particular print.
bcoultry is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:29 AM.