Any aesthetic or technical or ethical reasons not to just use unsharp mask everything

[BetterSense]

I just got into photography, as a background.

So I started fiddling around with my film scans. I used Gimp a little bit, but then I downloaded Digikam, which is more noobish and has lots of easy to apply PP stuff.

One thing I've noticed is that the Auto Levels tends to do a pretty good job of making color look right to my noobish eyes. And also that the default unsharp mask really seems to improve a majority of my photos...not always, sometimes it ends up looking artificial or annoying. But sometimes, it just looks sharper. So here I am applying unsharp mask and Auto Levels to like 75% of my photos...which come from raw film scans, so sure the colors might be a bit off...but am I doing something wrong?

[Nesster]

Typically, some unsharp mask is applied by nearly everyone. The trick is not to overdo it - and there are zones of sharpening for different purposes.

.2-.3 radius is safe to use for very high percentages, I usually use above 160%. A larger radius starts to look processed and over-sharpened.

Around 1 pixel radius with a fair amount of sharpening is sometimes useful if the image needs to be printed large with an inkjet printer.

Something like 25-35 pixels and low sharpening, <20% say, can improve the local contrast in an image. A higher % and halos start to form.

Auto Levels is also a good thing, a good starting point or comparison, and great for fast fixing of a lot of snapshots. I try it, and if to my eyes the pic loses its atmosphere / color cast that I like, I undo. Then I try Auto Contrast for the same reason.

You aren't doing anything wrong, after all it's what your eyes see and appreciate that matters. Educating the eye happens as a matter of experience. The only thing I'd warn about is that the Auto settings often push the fixes to that fine line of too much and not enough - we noobs have to SEE that the button just took and effect, right? Too subtle and we figure it doesn't do anything, and too much and we think it sucks.


Ethical and aesthetic: the photo editor has replaced darkroom technique. The master photographer/printers of the past used every trick in the book and several secret ones to boot in order to get the prints that made their reputations. How's software any different?

[rparmar]

It has been reported that Pentax applies little correction to its in-camera RAW images, relative to other makes. That's why I like it... it leaves the decisions to the photographer instead of over-sharpening or going mad with noise reduction.

Every image can do with post-processing to bring out the captured data as photographically useful information. I just call it developing a picture and get on with it.

[BetterSense]

I don't have a digital camera; I'm scanning film or in some cases, prints.

[sewebster]

Is the Lightroom (1.4) sharpening tool an unsharp mask? I assume so, since the option names sound the same. Are the numbers and method the same as photoshop (which I don't have). I often mess around with the sharpening in lightroom, and at 100% I can see some difference, but essentially never notice ANY difference at all when zoomed out. I guess this could be important for printing, but for the web, it seems pointless. Am I doing something wrong?

[rparmar]

Originally Posted by BetterSense

I don't have a digital camera; I'm scanning film or in some cases, prints.

But the same principle applies. Aesthetically you are trying to make the images look "as good as possible" or "as they should" or whatever other criteria you apply. Since you have already put them through a scan (a complex hardware and software procedure that interprets the reflected light as a series of encoded measurements) why not do any post-processing that seems fit?

[graphicgr8s]

Sharpening should be the last thing you do before you save the file. Just make sure your scanner isn't adding a sharpen when you scan. Most default to adding it. Photoshop CS3 has a really cool "Smart Sharpen" Sharpening actually works by rounding over/blurring individual pixels slightly.

[kerrowdown]

In CS3 I nearly always run the unsharp mask twice, first: set to amount 330 % and radius to 0.3 pixels, second: set amount to 15 % and radius to 60 pixels, this gives an almost soft velvety film like appearance to the sharpened shot, try and see for yourself.

[song_hm]

Originally Posted by kerrowdown

In CS3 I nearly always run the unsharp mask twice, first: set to amount 330 % and radius to 0.3 pixels, second: set amount to 15 % and radius to 60 pixels, this gives an almost soft velvety film like appearance to the sharpened shot, try and see for yourself.

I tried it and I like it! I made a small adjustments to this workflow:
1) perform the double unsharp on a copy layer
2) set the copy layer blend mode to Lighten
3) adjust opacity

[stevebrot]

One of the dirty little secrets of Lightroom is that the default import settings for RAW images includes +25 sharpening. A little bit is generally appropriate.

Steve

[alohadave]

Originally Posted by stevebrot

One of the dirty little secrets of Lightroom is that the default import settings for RAW images includes +25 sharpening. A little bit is generally appropriate.

Steve

Capture sharpening is different than output sharpening. What Lightroom is doing is capture sharpening. When you save the pictures for output (screen, print), you can apply additional sharpening that is appropriate.

[BetterSense]

In CS3 I nearly always run the unsharp mask twice, first: set to amount 330 % and radius to 0.3 pixels, second: set amount to 15 % and radius to 60 pixels, this gives an almost soft velvety film like appearance to the sharpened shot, try and see for yourself.

None of these numbers make sense to me. I usually use Digikam or gimp. Digicam's smallest radius is 1, and 'amount' goes from 0 to 5. 'Threshold' goes from zero to 1.