[rfkiii]

SeattleDucks, thanks for the image.


Coincidentally, I have removed two major sharpening steps (the 2nd one just this week) since getting the 645z as being more destructive than helpful to my Pentax images. The last few images I have processed received only a modest wide radius treatment (amount 9) for contrast and Bicubic Sharper (if you can call this sharpening). No sharpening in ACR.


Deconvolution sharpening (formerly known as capture sharpening perhaps coined in Bruce Fraser's book, first edition) provides only a visible difference in the size image I use viewing at about 3 inches (no hyperbole) vs. the method above. The work involved in optimizing the capture/deconvolution sharpening for each image for this small difference may not be effort-effective for many, images printed at 54" notwithstanding. Have you determined your settings above as a default LR?


Regarding diffraction, I've seen some apertures mentioned in this thread in conjunction with nameless lenses that I'd like to get more info on. Although I use f16 without trepidation, I haven't noticed that I need to stop down for any reason other than DoF purposes with the lenses I own, 28-45, 55 (kit lens), 120 A, 200 FA & 45-85 FA. Maybe I haven't been observant enough. Using the Cambridge in Colour diffraction calculator and putting in enough pixels to produce a 5.3um pixel size matching the 645z pixel size per the suggestions of the members there, it appears that f11 is not diffraction limited whereas f16 is. This doesn't mean that diffraction isn't present at f11 or f8 but again, it's all of that work....


I noticed a trio of iconic images hanging in your living room/den. If only I was allowed to hang photos. My gal, the decorator, believes in more traditional art objects.

[SeattleDucks]

SeattleDucks, thanks for the image.


Coincidentally, I have removed two major sharpening steps (the 2nd one just this week) since getting the 645z as being more destructive than helpful to my Pentax images. The last few images I have processed received only a modest wide radius treatment (amount 9) for contrast and Bicubic Sharper (if you can call this sharpening). No sharpening in ACR.


Deconvolution sharpening (formerly known as capture sharpening perhaps coined in Bruce Fraser's book, first edition) provides only a visible difference in the size image I use viewing at about 3 inches (no hyperbole) vs. the method above. The work involved in optimizing the capture/deconvolution sharpening for each image for this small difference may not be effort-effective for many, images printed at 54" notwithstanding. Have you determined your settings above as a default LR?


Regarding diffraction, I've seen some apertures mentioned in this thread in conjunction with nameless lenses that I'd like to get more info on. Although I use f16 without trepidation, I haven't noticed that I need to stop down for any reason other than DoF purposes with the lenses I own, 28-45, 55 (kit lens), 120 A, 200 FA & 45-85 FA. Maybe I haven't been observant enough. Using the Cambridge in Colour diffraction calculator and putting in enough pixels to produce a 5.3um pixel size matching the 645z pixel size per the suggestions of the members there, it appears that f11 is not diffraction limited whereas f16 is. This doesn't mean that diffraction isn't present at f11 or f8 but again, it's all of that work....


I noticed a trio of iconic images hanging in your living room/den. If only I was allowed to hang photos. My gal, the decorator, believes in more traditional art objects.

Hey rfkiii, interesting about your own sharpening workflow. It's definitely all about what works for each individual's goals and preferences. Yes, my default LR5 sharpening for 645Z & D files that were shot near base ISO is Amount 45, Radius 0.8, Detail 100, and masking 10. But from there I fine-tune for each image as needed. My goal is maximum fine details and textural nuances with no visible artifacts. Toggling those sharpening settings on & off is quite dramatic!

I come from a 4x5 large format traditional landscape background and have a love for fine detail rendered in very large prints, so I'm motivated to squeeze all I can out of the camera files, while also avoiding any worries about diffraction at small apertures since the software workflow is able to recover sharpness enough to keep me very satisfied. My favorite print sizes are 40x30 and 50x40, and small changes in processing workflow do show up at those sizes, to my eye. The average customer is far less critical and demanding then me, but that does not affect my pursuit - I seek to satisfy my own aesthetic first and foremost. I will always love taking in the entire composition of a big print on a wall at a distance, and then moving in closer and closer so I can examine the sharp details of the little scenes within the scene. That's part of the joy of the craft for me.

There is one particular well-known tester with seemingly a lot of influence on photographers who makes a big deal about lenses losing their sharpness and contrast when stopped down into diffraction territory, and he'll frequently recommend not going beyond f/8 on most hi-res cameras. Largely why I wrote this post is to give an example of a 645Z image that, when processed with deconvolution, shows quite spectacular detail, sharpness, and contrast at f/22 - an aperture that would have this particular tester scoffing :-)

That sounds a little sad to me if you are not able to hang some of your images in your home!

[rfkiii]

Hey rfkiii, interesting about your own sharpening workflow. It's definitely all about what works for each individual's goals and preferences. Yes, my default LR5 sharpening for 645Z & D files that were shot near base ISO is Amount 45, Radius 0.8, Detail 100, and masking 10. But from there I fine-tune for each image as needed. My goal is maximum fine details and textural nuances with no visible artifacts. Toggling those sharpening settings on & off is quite dramatic!

I come from a 4x5 large format traditional landscape background and have a love for fine detail rendered in very large prints, so I'm motivated to squeeze all I can out of the camera files, while also avoiding any worries about diffraction at small apertures since the software workflow is able to recover sharpness enough to keep me very satisfied. My favorite print sizes are 40x30 and 50x40, and small changes in processing workflow do show up at those sizes, to my eye. The average customer is far less critical and demanding then me, but that does not affect my pursuit - I seek to satisfy my own aesthetic first and foremost. I will always love taking in the entire composition of a big print on a wall at a distance, and then moving in closer and closer so I can examine the sharp details of the little scenes within the scene. That's part of the joy of the craft for me.

There is one particular well-known tester with seemingly a lot of influence on photographers who makes a big deal about lenses losing their sharpness and contrast when stopped down into diffraction territory, and he'll frequently recommend not going beyond f/8 on most hi-res cameras. Largely why I wrote this post is to give an example of a 645Z image that, when processed with deconvolution, shows quite spectacular detail, sharpness, and contrast at f/22 - an aperture that would have this particular tester scoffing :-)

That sounds a little sad to me if you are not able to hang some of your images in your home!

Thanks for the reply.


While working with your settings, I could definitely see the difference between those results and no sharpening. ACR suggests working at 100% to better see the results but when I exported the sharpened image to tiff for further adjustments, I could see no difference between it and a non-sharpened version. So, I have a couple of stupid questions to ask if you have time.


1.) For years, I have cropped and down-sized my images in ACR based on the final dimensions needed before conversion. Does the image have to be exported at 100% full size for the sharpening to 'stick'. Logically, I know this question makes no sense but then this IS Adobe we are discussing. I actually over sharpened a version that presented with bad artifacts while in ACR and the result of those settings did not save to tiff.
2.) It is my understanding that the Sharpen For: Screen, Matte etc is a separate sharpening routine from the Details Tab. I've turned that off and on, with/without capture/deconvolution sharpening with seemingly no effect.
3.) Are the sharpening changes so subtle that they are not visible when downsizing to, let's say... 2880x2160 or 3600x2160 for viewing on my monitor?

[algrove]

VERY interesting thread for me. Had no idea about the 100% for Detail. I often use 70%, but now will try 100% to see how it "helps" my images.