unsharp masking

Shelley wrote:

Hi I am looking to find out people’s opinions on unsharp masking methods. I work in a newspaper and recently two different "Photoshop gurus" have been through the place with vastly differing methods of the use of unsharp masking.

Both gurus operated on the image in CMYK for the unsharp masking process (this is for newspaper reproduction)

Guru one’s method was to have the radius as 1, the threshold at 12 for people and one for anything else and to adjust the amount accordingly for the particular photo

Guru two’s method was to again have the radius at 1 and have the amount fixed at 230 and adjust the threshold accordingly for the photo.
I would like to hear from people regarding their experience with unsharp masking with regards to commercial printing and which philosophy they are more likely to follow. I would also welcome other suggestions in regards to the use of this filter. Please note I am not interested in web reproduction purely in print reproductions.

Thanks
Shelley

Long ago, when I used USM, I had an action from someone that made a mask first to only allow it to work on the edges. I don’t remember the details though. It was the best I found before buying Focus Magic.

Clyde

Hate to add one more opinion to the discussion, but I will repeat info recently posted: I use the high-pass filter for nearly all sharpening because you can have such control with it. Make a copy of your layer, run the high-pass filter (under ‘other’) so that you see only the outlines of the edges that you want sharper. Change the blending mode to either soft light (less sharpening) or overlay (more sharpening) – adjust the opacity of the filter layer as needed.

Takes a little practice to figure out the settings, but once you get the idea, it is easy and quick – and no halos. I usually start with soft light and bump up to overlay (or even hard light) only if needed. You can also mask part of the layer where you want no sharpening at all (such as over parts of a face).

My professional photographer friends are all sold on this method – that’s where I picked it up.

Flo

"Shelley" wrote in message

Hi I am looking to find out people’s opinions on unsharp masking methods. I
work in a newspaper and recently two different "Photoshop gurus" have been through the place with vastly differing methods of the use of unsharp masking.

Both gurus operated on the image in CMYK for the unsharp masking process (this is for newspaper reproduction)

Guru one’s method was to have the radius as 1, the threshold at 12 for people and one for anything else and to adjust the amount accordingly for the particular photo

Guru two’s method was to again have the radius at 1 and have the amount fixed at 230 and adjust the threshold accordingly for the photo.
I would like to hear from people regarding their experience with unsharp masking with regards to commercial printing and which philosophy they are more likely to follow. I would also welcome other suggestions in regards to
the use of this filter. Please note I am not interested in web reproduction
purely in print reproductions.

Thanks
Shelley

I think so much of the answer depends on the difference between the original image size and the finished size. I use Unsharp Mask when converting from a print resolution to a web resolution or when downsizing any pixel based image or graphic. My own preference in this capacity is to use an amount of 97%, a radius of 0.3 to .04 and a Threshold of 0. I invariably preview the adjustment as I’m making it, often placing my cursor in each value box and using my arrow keys to change the value up or down as I see fit. I look at both the main image behind the Unsharp Mask panel as well as a zoomed in preview within the panel. I think in this case, the ends justifies the means. Which "guru’s" result turned out best???

Peadge 🙂

I use the threshold low, then sharpen around 105 to start, lowest pixel number as possible, then I move the sharpen up (top slider) as necessary. I do it by eye according to the photo, some need less, some need more

I am looking forward to trying the high pass method while at the same time wishing more of my digital shots were in sharp focus in the first place.

"Shelley" wrote in message

Hi I am looking to find out people’s opinions on unsharp masking methods. I
work in a newspaper and recently two different "Photoshop gurus" have been through the place with vastly differing methods of the use of unsharp masking.

Both gurus operated on the image in CMYK for the unsharp masking process (this is for newspaper reproduction)

Guru one’s method was to have the radius as 1, the threshold at 12 for people and one for anything else and to adjust the amount accordingly for the particular photo

Guru two’s method was to again have the radius at 1 and have the amount fixed at 230 and adjust the threshold accordingly for the photo.
I would like to hear from people regarding their experience with unsharp masking with regards to commercial printing and which philosophy they are more likely to follow. I would also welcome other suggestions in regards to
the use of this filter. Please note I am not interested in web reproduction
purely in print reproductions.

Thanks
Shelley

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:28:41 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

I am looking forward to trying the high pass method while at the same time wishing more of my digital shots were in sharp focus in the first place.

LOL! If it’s any help the problem is getting used to the decreasing depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF. The best way round this, providing you have reasonable light, is don’t use the lens wide open, drop it to 5.6 or 6.7 for example (my lens is f4 wide open) and give yourself a bit more DOF to play with.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:28:41 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

I am looking forward to trying the high pass method while at the same time wishing more of my digital shots were in sharp focus in the first place.

LOL! If it’s any help the problem is getting used to the decreasing depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF.

None. It’s still a 300mm and the laws of physics do not change if you put this lens on a 350D.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

In article <FQ1ke.11904$>,
says…

Hi I am looking to find out people’s opinions on unsharp masking methods. I work in a newspaper and recently two different "Photoshop gurus" have been through the place with vastly differing methods of the use of unsharp masking.

Both gurus operated on the image in CMYK for the unsharp masking process (this is for newspaper reproduction)

Guru one’s method was to have the radius as 1, the threshold at 12 for people and one for anything else and to adjust the amount accordingly for the particular photo

Guru two’s method was to again have the radius at 1 and have the amount fixed at 230 and adjust the threshold accordingly for the photo.
I would like to hear from people regarding their experience with unsharp masking with regards to commercial printing and which philosophy they are more likely to follow. I would also welcome other suggestions in regards to the use of this filter. Please note I am not interested in web reproduction purely in print reproductions.

Thanks
Shelley

The radius of the unsharp depends upon the resolution of the image. You want to sharpen at an effective radius of about 1/100 inch or so. So for a 300 dpi ink jet the radius would be around 3.
There is also some who sharpen when opening a file to compensate for losses in the camera or scanner. This, of course, depends on the source. I have a couple of tips on my web site about sharpening, including using masks to prevent sharpening on smooth areas like the sky. They are mostly aimed at inkjet output, but you might find some of them can be adapted for your purposes.
Just follow the tips link on my home page.
—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

"Hecate" wrote in message

depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF.

Absolutely none.

On Sun, 22 May 2005 23:39:24 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 14:28:41 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

I am looking forward to trying the high pass method while at the same time wishing more of my digital shots were in sharp focus in the first place.

LOL! If it’s any help the problem is getting used to the decreasing depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF.

None. It’s still a 300mm and the laws of physics do not change if you put this lens on a 350D.

No they don’t, but the angle of view does, and so does the apparent DOF.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

In article ,
Robert Feinman wrote:

The radius of the unsharp depends upon the resolution of the image. You want to sharpen at an effective radius of about 1/100 inch or so. So for a 300 dpi ink jet the radius would be around 3.

This assumes that there is a !:1 correlation between the radius in pixels and the size of the unsharp halo in pixels, which there isn’t (as a little bit of experimentation will confirm). A radius of 3 actually produces an area of effect of more than 3 pixels around areas of high contrast; as a result, this is a pretty substantial radius for a 300ppi image.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink: all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

Hecate wrote:

LOL! If it’s any help the problem is getting used to the decreasing depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF.

None. It’s still a 300mm and the laws of physics do not change if you put this lens on a 350D.

No they don’t, but the angle of view does, and so does the apparent DOF.

That depends on what you compare. A 350D with a 300mm has a 1.6x LARGER depth of field than a 1Ds2 with a 480mm.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

tacit wrote:

In article ,
Robert Feinman wrote:

The radius of the unsharp depends upon the resolution of the image. You want to sharpen at an effective radius of about 1/100 inch or so. So for a 300 dpi ink jet the radius would be around 3.

This assumes that there is a !:1 correlation between the radius in pixels and the size of the unsharp halo in pixels, which there isn’t (as a little bit of experimentation will confirm). A radius of 3 actually produces an area of effect of more than 3 pixels around areas of high contrast; as a result, this is a pretty substantial radius for a 300ppi image.

Agreed. Many have advised to keep the USM radius under 1 to avoid introducing halos and sharpening noise. A radius of 3 is way too high for 300ppi prints.

Hey guys,
Thank you very much for your insight into unsharp masking especially tacit, it makes a whole lot more sense.
shelley

On Tue, 24 May 2005 12:51:59 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

LOL! If it’s any help the problem is getting used to the decreasing depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF.

None. It’s still a 300mm and the laws of physics do not change if you put this lens on a 350D.

No they don’t, but the angle of view does, and so does the apparent DOF.

That depends on what you compare. A 350D with a 300mm has a 1.6x LARGER depth of field than a 1Ds2 with a 480mm.

Yes, it does depend on what you compare with, I agree. I should’ve been more careful in using DoF, which perhaps wasn’t the best choice of words.

The other thing to take into consideration is the apparent magnification caused by a less than 35mm equivalent sensor (which is actually caused by the narrowed AoV). That usually results in less than optimum focus until you get used to it due to the fact that it "magnifies" any lens movement.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

That depends on what you compare. A 350D with a 300mm has a 1.6x LARGER depth of field than a 1Ds2 with a 480mm.

Yes, it does depend on what you compare with, I agree. I should’ve been more careful in using DoF, which perhaps wasn’t the best choice of words.

The other thing to take into consideration is the apparent magnification caused by a less than 35mm equivalent sensor (which is actually caused by the narrowed AoV). That usually results in less than optimum focus until you get used to it due to the fact that it "magnifies" any lens movement.

The focus is the same, no matter how large or how small the sensor is. What you are referring to is the fact that you more easily get a blurred picture due to camera shake (if you handheld the camera).

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Wed, 25 May 2005 00:06:39 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Hecate wrote:

That depends on what you compare. A 350D with a 300mm has a 1.6x LARGER depth of field than a 1Ds2 with a 480mm.

Yes, it does depend on what you compare with, I agree. I should’ve been more careful in using DoF, which perhaps wasn’t the best choice of words.

The other thing to take into consideration is the apparent magnification caused by a less than 35mm equivalent sensor (which is actually caused by the narrowed AoV). That usually results in less than optimum focus until you get used to it due to the fact that it "magnifies" any lens movement.

The focus is the same, no matter how large or how small the sensor is. What you are referring to is the fact that you more easily get a blurred picture due to camera shake (if you handheld the camera).

The angle of view is narrower and as you well know, the smaller the angle of view, the more chance there is out either out of focus or missed focus problems (as in, you set the focus point for the eye, but it’s actually just below it, for example). And that doesn’t just occur handholding, it also happens using a monopod. Of course, I am talking about subjects which aren’t static.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

The focus is the same, no matter how large or how small the sensor is. What you are referring to is the fact that you more easily get a blurred picture due to camera shake (if you handheld the camera).

The angle of view is narrower and as you well know, the smaller the angle of view, the more chance there is out either out of focus or missed focus problems (as in, you set the focus point for the eye, but it’s actually just below it, for example). And that doesn’t just occur handholding, it also happens using a monopod. Of course, I am talking about subjects which aren’t static.

Aha, is that what you meant. Well, that is debatable. The smaller the AoV, the bigger the part you want to focus on, so the easier it should be to focus on EXACTLY that point, at least in theory. The hardest lenses to focus truely accurately are wide angle lenses, not telephoto lenses. Only because wide angle lenses have a very large DOF, this usually does not lead to visible out of focus problems. Try to focus on that same eye from the same distance while using a wide angle lens! You could easily miss it by half a meter or more.

Yes, telephoto can cause problems because even the slightest out of focus will immediately show due to the lack of DOF, I grant you that. But now going back to your 300mm. This lens does NOT have a smaller DOF when placed on a EOS 350D, so wouldn’t the smaller AoV make it easier to focus this lens on a 350D than on a full frame camera? I never tried it (I only use FF cameras), but I think it’s an interesting thought.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

well all your theories are interesting but in practice, so far, the teles are giving us more focusing problems. Why would Canon start selling IS lenses (internal stabilizer technology) They pitched these SLR to those of us with large investment in EF lenses, and should have made it clear we would really need to buy all new lenses to get the same results.

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

The focus is the same, no matter how large or how small the sensor is. What you are referring to is the fact that you more easily get a blurred picture due to camera shake (if you handheld the camera).

The angle of view is narrower and as you well know, the smaller the angle of view, the more chance there is out either out of focus or missed focus problems (as in, you set the focus point for the eye, but it’s actually just below it, for example). And that doesn’t just occur handholding, it also happens using a monopod. Of course, I am talking about subjects which aren’t static.

Aha, is that what you meant. Well, that is debatable. The smaller the AoV, the bigger the part you want to focus on, so the easier it should be to focus on EXACTLY that point, at least in theory. The hardest lenses to focus truely accurately are wide angle lenses, not telephoto lenses. Only because wide angle lenses have a very large DOF, this usually does not lead to visible out of focus problems. Try to focus on that same eye from the same distance while using a wide angle lens! You could easily miss it by half a meter or more.

Yes, telephoto can cause problems because even the slightest out of focus will immediately show due to the lack of DOF, I grant you that. But now going back to your 300mm. This lens does NOT have a smaller DOF when placed on a EOS 350D, so wouldn’t the smaller AoV make it easier to focus this lens on a 350D than on a full frame camera? I never tried it (I only use FF cameras), but I think it’s an interesting thought.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

KatWoman wrote:

well all your theories are interesting but in practice, so far, the teles are giving us more focusing problems. Why would Canon start selling IS lenses (internal stabilizer technology) They pitched these SLR to those of us with large investment in EF lenses, and should have made it clear we would really need to buy all new lenses to get the same results.

IS has a little to do with focussing, but much more with reducing camera shake. If telephoto lenses are giving you more focus problems than wide angle lenses, it’s for another reason than you think. If you use a wide angle and focus on a person, it’s good enough that the camera focusses somewhere on that persons body. Any point on the body will do, because the DOF is more than sufficient. Use a normal focal length and you start to worry that the focus should be on the face, not the shoulder. Use a telephoto and you want to focus exactly on the eye, not the cheek. Conclusion, it is not more difficult to focus with telephoto lenses, but your demands increase. With a wide angle you couldn’t possibly focus as accurately as with a telephoto, but fortunately you don’t need to anyway.

Now going back to a 300mm on a 350D, which has 1.6x MORE DOF than a 480mm on a full frame camera, and it becomes obvious that you should have LESS problems with focussing compared to me using a 480mm.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

On Thu, 26 May 2005 01:04:15 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Aha, is that what you meant. Well, that is debatable. The smaller the AoV, the bigger the part you want to focus on, so the easier it should be to focus on EXACTLY that point, at least in theory. The hardest lenses to focus truely accurately are wide angle lenses, not telephoto lenses. Only because wide angle lenses have a very large DOF, this usually does not lead to visible out of focus problems. Try to focus on that same eye from the same distance while using a wide angle lens! You could easily miss it by half a meter or more.

LOL!

Yes, telephoto can cause problems because even the slightest out of focus will immediately show due to the lack of DOF, I grant you that. But now going back to your 300mm. This lens does NOT have a smaller DOF when placed on a EOS 350D, so wouldn’t the smaller AoV make it easier to focus this lens on a 350D than on a full frame camera? I never tried it (I only use FF cameras), but I think it’s an interesting thought.

Weirdly, no. I agree with you that it should, but I found the opposite effect. It took me a couple of weeks to get the focus point where I wanted it, even with the IS working. Maybe it’s the IS that’s the problem. Not sure, because of the film results. Still, I’ve heard this from a fair number of people now, and it’s always with telephotos.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 26 May 2005 12:46:06 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

well all your theories are interesting but in practice, so far, the teles are giving us more focusing problems. Why would Canon start selling IS lenses (internal stabilizer technology) They pitched these SLR to those of us with large investment in EF lenses, and should have made it clear we would really need to buy all new lenses to get the same results.

Whilst I agree with Johann, I’ve heard a number of people saying they have had this problem. I did wonder if it was the IS, but I don’t get the same problem on a film camera. It took me a couple of weeks, at least, to get the camera focusing where I wanted it to, and that was restricting it to centre point focus only and using follow focus (I can’t let it decide where it’s going to focus when I’m focusing on wildlife – invariably the eye won’t be sharp.).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Yes it does. Depth of field is a function of magnification. You have more magnification at an effective 480mm so you will have less DOF. .. . . . patrick

"Hannah" wrote in message

"Hecate" wrote in message

depth of filed with longer lenses. For example, my 300mm is a 480mm equivalent on my 350D. You can imagine the difference that makes to the DOF.

Absolutely none.

patrick wrote:

Yes it does. Depth of field is a function of magnification. You have more magnification at an effective 480mm so you will have less DOF. . . . . patrick

Here’s one of many good articles on the subject that seems to cover everything discussed.
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Articlexasp/88d8a85c-986e-445e -abfd-942f9e4171e3/Default.htm

John and Hecate have been having some interesting discussions lately. I have to side with John re the theoretical aspect of the problem: DOF, if defined in terms of angular resolution only, does not "really" depend on what’s behind the lens, only on the lens characteristics themselves, specifically the aparent aperture size. As a practical matter, Hecate is right. Magnifying an image makes it less sharp, and decreases the range of acceptable focus on the final print.

—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

On Fri, 27 May 2005 19:16:42 GMT, "Mike Russell" wrote:

patrick wrote:

Yes it does. Depth of field is a function of magnification. You have more magnification at an effective 480mm so you will have less DOF. . . . . patrick

Here’s one of many good articles on the subject that seems to cover everything discussed.
http://www.photoreview.com.au/Articlexasp/88d8a85c-986e-445e -abfd-942f9e4171e3/Default.htm
John and Hecate have been having some interesting discussions lately. I have to side with John re the theoretical aspect of the problem: DOF, if defined in terms of angular resolution only, does not "really" depend on what’s behind the lens, only on the lens characteristics themselves, specifically the aparent aperture size. As a practical matter, Hecate is right. Magnifying an image makes it less sharp, and decreases the range of acceptable focus on the final print.

Now, I wish I’d said that in the first place 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…