USM approaches - why does it do that then ?

LittleSkink · 10-13-2008, 04:27 AM

can't find a thread on this, though it may be out there

still a bit of a newb with this Unsharp (though a trained scientist so techy stuff should be ok). Have read around, learnt some great tips on this forum and done lots of experiments - now have an approach that seems ok

But am unsure I really understand what is actually going on and what parameters matter (eg pixel count, print size, USM %, USM Pixels) and what doesnt (USM threshold?)

For example, I have a full resolution K10 raw file of my kids (so portrait) that is going to be a 7.5 x5 print. The only post process (other than conversion) is usually two sharpens:
1 -150%, 0.4 Pix, 10 Threshold, followed by
2- 30%, 50 Pixel, 3 Threshold

using this #1 tweaks things a little (or I go 200% if not) and #2 seems to lift a fog from the pic (as I see it on screen). Certainly #1 seems pretty subtle by the time the prints (300dpi pro done) arrive in the post

So - 2 part question:
1 are there better setting to try and if I want to print 12 x 8, of 20 x 16 do the same settings work (or if I crop from landscape to portrait and the pixel count drops dramatically?)
2 If I am doing macros of bugs and flowers would better settings work as gentle skin graduation is less of an issue here

or should I just go read some more

atupdate · 10-13-2008, 05:30 AM

Here is a link to one of Benjikan's articles where he talks about his work flow. Benjikan is a pro-fashion photo based in Paris. I've use his UMS flow and many of my images.

Benjamin Kanarek post processing method | PentaxLife

Also, Ron Bigelow has a hugh USM write up on his site.

Ron Bigelow Articles

Tim

LittleSkink · 10-13-2008, 06:41 AM

thanks for the info

not seen the Ron articles before. . .

I now have much to read and learn beyond the basics seen elsewhere in books / web

thank you

14 OCT UPDATE - ok read all that now and learnt some cool stuff, BUT still don't get what the second USM (with 50 or more pixel radius) pass is actually doing at the pixel level in the image. Not where the idea comes from