Jeff your "Selective sharpening" is a good technique. This is a great way to work. You can have several duplicated layers with different amounts of sharpening and layer masks to let through only the right parts.
herschel
Herschel Mair
Head of the Department of Photography,
Head of the Department of Photography,
Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Adobe Certified instructor
+ (986) 99899 673
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2006 6:31:12 AM
Subject: Re: Sharpening, and improving focus, and reducing motion blur
From: Jeff Spirer <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, November 3, 2006 6:31:12 AM
Subject: Re: Sharpening, and improving focus, and reducing motion blur
I sharpen selectively for most photos that are not for jobs. I use
layer masks and Smart Sharpen (very flexible and effective) with the
sharpness that suits the photo. I think the "one setting fits all"
approach works if you are doing production, but for individual
photos, I find it far more useful to sharpen just the parts that need
it. Sometimes I use both sharpen and blur to modify the image further.
At 06:04 PM 11/1/2006, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>On 11/1/06, Emily L. Ferguson <elf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Interesting about trying to standardize on sharpening settings.
>>Using that premise it seems to me that one must expect all ones
>>captures to be tack sharp before processing?
>>
>>I aim to not have to apply any sharpening as a start. If I'm so
>>attached to an image that I can't accept that it's not sharp enough,
>>then I grit my teeth and apply sharpening - as little as I can get
>>away with.
>>
>>The last time I sharpened, the radius was .08 and the threshold was
>>as low as Unsharp Mask permitted.
>>
>>Now, it's quite clear that jpegs for web use do require sharpening.
>>For that at least 50% works fine.
>>
>>But to me every image is a unique situation. Percentage just can't
>>be standardized in my view.
>
>My position is that every digital image requires sharpening before
>use, at some stage -- maybe just in camera or in the scanner software.
>
>I very much agree that for anything beyond proofs and snapshots, you
>need to look at individual images and make choices. Still, seeing the
>starting points people think of as "normal' for different kinds (print
>of various sizes, web) of images is very interesting.
>--
>David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
>RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
>Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
>Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
>
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
layer masks and Smart Sharpen (very flexible and effective) with the
sharpness that suits the photo. I think the "one setting fits all"
approach works if you are doing production, but for individual
photos, I find it far more useful to sharpen just the parts that need
it. Sometimes I use both sharpen and blur to modify the image further.
At 06:04 PM 11/1/2006, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>On 11/1/06, Emily L. Ferguson <elf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>Interesting about trying to standardize on sharpening settings.
>>Using that premise it seems to me that one must expect all ones
>>captures to be tack sharp before processing?
>>
>>I aim to not have to apply any sharpening as a start. If I'm so
>>attached to an image that I can't accept that it's not sharp enough,
>>then I grit my teeth and apply sharpening - as little as I can get
>>away with.
>>
>>The last time I sharpened, the radius was .08 and the threshold was
>>as low as Unsharp Mask permitted.
>>
>>Now, it's quite clear that jpegs for web use do require sharpening.
>>For that at least 50% works fine.
>>
>>But to me every image is a unique situation. Percentage just can't
>>be standardized in my view.
>
>My position is that every digital image requires sharpening before
>use, at some stage -- maybe just in camera or in the scanner software.
>
>I very much agree that for anything beyond proofs and snapshots, you
>need to look at individual images and make choices. Still, seeing the
>starting points people think of as "normal' for different kinds (print
>of various sizes, web) of images is very interesting.
>--
>David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
>RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
>Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
>Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
>
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
