Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 4, 2009, 8:09 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default When to sharpen and why

What's better for showing picks on the web (forums, blogs, etc.)?

1. To sharpen full sized picks and then resize and upload.
2. To sharpen full sized picks and let the web hosting to resize.
3. To resize first, sharpen next and then upload.
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 4, 2009, 9:33 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

I do #3 and havent had any problems. I think if you leave it to the hosting site to resize this causes blurring. If sharpening full size pics then the settings must be higher to allow for the size reduction.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2009, 11:39 PM   #3
Member
 
neilcrichton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Claresholm, AB, Canada
Posts: 79
Default

#3. Sharpening should be the very last step before saving. Also, make sure the image on the screen is at actual size so that you can accurately assess the effect of the sharpening.
neilcrichton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 2:23 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

I often wondered about that too.

I prefer option #3 - only problem being that one does not (at least I am not) have full control of the final file-size when doing that.

All sites have a limit as to how big a file-size can be, like here at Steve's it's 253Kb. So I downsize picture-size from my 3648x2736pixels to lets say: 800 x 600 and downsize the picture quality to around 200kb to be well within the allowed limit.

If I then apply a sharpening-process, the file-size may jump up to some 300Kb's beeing well above the allowed file-size....

This juggeling of file- and picture-sizes is a pinstakingly slow and aggravating process. This is why I keep my best shots at another site where I can have almost unlimited picture-size and then make a link to Steve's instead of uploading directly.

Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 6:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Ive never noticed a jump in file size after sharpening Walter. I will have to check that out. If I keep picture size to 8.5 x 11 then its within the 800 x 800 pixel size and then by selecting the jpeg compression I keep the size to less than 190 Kb.
All my photos shot are 7.1 Megapixel. That relates to 42.25 x 32 Inches at 72dpi. If in portrait mode I reduce to 25% the pic will fit on Steves. If its landscape and I reduce it to 30% it will again fit on Steves. And when I say fit, it means the whole image will be displayed on screen without having to scroll up and down.

Last edited by Bynx; Dec 5, 2009 at 6:48 AM.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 7:10 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fredrikstad - Norway / Europe
Posts: 1,954
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bynx View Post
Ive never noticed a jump in file size after sharpening Walter. I will have to check that out...
I am quite sure the file-size increases after the sharpening process.

It is quite natural really if you think about it, because there is so much more information that has to be written down after the process than before. Makes sense, doesn't it? And if you don't check that and try to upload over the limit, Steve's will downsize it for you, giving you lesser IQ .

Last edited by Walter_S; Dec 5, 2009 at 7:13 AM.
Walter_S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 8:44 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Bynx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,585
Default

Well learn something new every day. Never paid attention to file size because it never mattered to me. But under the same conditions a file saved prior to sharpening was 327 kb. After sharpening the same file was 447 kb.
Bynx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 11:22 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,214
Default

For this type of thing, I downsize, then sharpen as necessary, then open the 'save as' dialog box and adjust the compression to fit file size limits. I almost always use Photoimpact, but I have used PS elements and others, and seem to recall the same options are available as well.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 1:10 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Ordo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: BsAs
Posts: 3,452
Default

Also I ask myself about the quality of the sharpening process in various programs. Are all the same or some programs will do a better sharpening than others?
Ordo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 5, 2009, 1:32 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,543
Default

It seems to me that sharpening lower resolution images would produce more noticeable oversharpening artifacts, while if an image is sharpened at its original size the oversharpening artifacts would be blurred in the process of downsampling. On the other hand, the downsampling is more likely to produce an image that one might think needs to be sharpened.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 6:41 AM.