Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Capture sharpening in ACR?  (Read 15115 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 18, 2009, 06:47:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Hi, firstly you save a lossless TIFF so there will be no image degredation. It's not a jpg. Secondly, the smart object idea won't work, as far as I know,  yup, just confirmed it. Opened an image as a smart object, resized it, double clicked on the smart object and it brought up ACR showing the original size.

As far as why I'm bothering Mark? Firstly I vastly prefer the sharpening. Secondly I have to close down PS 64 and open 32 bit just to use PK so if I'm opening and closing anyway I might as well use the method I like which takes very little time anyway as I have Bridge and PS open at the same time anyway. Thirdly it's faster. I have paid for PK and had it for a long time, I just find the capture sharpening controls more to my taste in ACR and the output sharpening more natural. Everyone to their own....

BTW would there be any interest in ACR/LR offering types of Output Sharpening to match type of printing, i.e. Contone/inkjet/halftone as there is at present in PK?

Ben, yes of course everyone to their own - I'd be the last person to dispute that; but at the same time I'd be really curious to see the difference in outcomes between each of these methods properly applied. Pixelgenius has issued a 64-bit beta for PKS if you are running Windows Vista (not me - ever).

Now, when you flatten your TIFF, it is lossless as Jonathan says, but then you lose all your layers and your "non-destructive" workflow. Of course you can avoid that by saving duplicates with the workflow minus the output sharpening you do in ACR. Also, introducing Smart Objects into a Photoshop workflow also carries with it some limitations (I have gotten pop-ups that such-and-such operations can't be performed on a SO). Well, as you say, each to their own.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2009, 07:59:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
BTW would there be any interest in ACR/LR offering types of Output Sharpening to match type of printing, i.e. Contone/inkjet/halftone as there is at present in PK?

Ben, that would be reasonably straightforward to add (from a technical perspective), but to be honest we have not heard many requests for the additional modes so far.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5497


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2009, 08:33:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
BTW would there be any interest in ACR/LR offering types of Output Sharpening to match type of printing, i.e. Contone/inkjet/halftone as there is at present in PK?


The current output sharpening in ACR/LR already do Inkjet and Contone–since in our testing, there was a close relationship to both. We decided that there didn't "need" to be two separate sharpenings. As for halftone, as Eric says, not hard to do if there is interest but at the moment one still needs to actually go into Photoshop for CMYK conversions and more accurate image sizing. If either of those situations change, then it may indeed make sense to put halftone output in ACR.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9187



WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 18, 2009, 08:33:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
There is no output sharpening algorithm in ACR that I've seen - as much as I've seen so far, only the one in the Detail tab which is intended as a capture sharpener.

Its in V5, in the workflow options.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 08:34:06 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #24 on: March 18, 2009, 12:28:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
The current output sharpening in ACR/LR already do Inkjet and Contone–since in our testing, there was a close relationship to both. We decided that there didn't "need" to be two separate sharpenings. As for halftone, as Eric says, not hard to do if there is interest but at the moment one still needs to actually go into Photoshop for CMYK conversions and more accurate image sizing. If either of those situations change, then it may indeed make sense to put halftone output in ACR.

If they are close enough not to make a difference then fair enuf!
Logged

jljonathan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2009, 04:44:27 PM »
ReplyReply

[quote name='pom' date='Mar 18 2009, 05:24 AM' post='268737']
Hi, firstly you save a lossless TIFF so there will be no image degredation. It's not a jpg. Secondly, the smart object idea won't work, as far as I know,  yup, just confirmed it. Opened an image as a smart object, resized it, double clicked on the smart object and it brought up ACR showing the original size.

Ben.
I just tried several version of using the smart object:
1. Open image in CR-correct and capture sharpen-open it as smart object in PS
2. Resize using image size command (keeping the pixel counts the same) and add adjustment layers-double click smart object so it opens in CR
3. Add output shapening click done
Back in photoshop the image is output sharpened, no flattening of layers etc.
When resizing (actually cropping so that the pixel counts change) is when things get problematic and the sizes for the sharpening don't match back properly in PS.
You probably know all this already, but I had to try it out myself so as to get a better understanding of it.

In addition, I printed an image with some fine detail first using CR for capture and output sharpening and another version using CR capture and Martin Evening's (Bruce Fraser's High Pass) output sharpening in PS. The CR in and out version is somewhat soft and less defined compared to the CR in and PS out version (which to my eye is preferable).
Jonathan
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #26 on: March 19, 2009, 04:55:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jljonathan
Quote from: pom
Hi, firstly you save a lossless TIFF so there will be no image degredation. It's not a jpg. Secondly, the smart object idea won't work, as far as I know,  yup, just confirmed it. Opened an image as a smart object, resized it, double clicked on the smart object and it brought up ACR showing the original size.

Ben.
I just tried several version of using the smart object:
1. Open image in CR-correct and capture sharpen-open it as smart object in PS
2. Resize using image size command (keeping the pixel counts the same) and add adjustment layers-double click smart object so it opens in CR
3. Add output shapening click done
Back in photoshop the image is output sharpened, no flattening of layers etc.
When resizing (actually cropping so that the pixel counts change) is when things get problematic and the sizes for the sharpening don't match back properly in PS.
You probably know all this already, but I had to try it out myself so as to get a better understanding of it.

In addition, I printed an image with some fine detail first using CR for capture and output sharpening and another version using CR capture and Martin Evening's (Bruce Fraser's High Pass) output sharpening in PS. The CR in and out version is somewhat soft and less defined compared to the CR in and PS out version (which to my eye is preferable).
Jonathan

Bit confused, your first test confirms what I said above, you can't open a smart object, resize it and then add output to the original smart object which is a) unresized  does not have the changes made by the layers. What you are essentially doing is applying both capture and output as the very first stage of your workflow. Ouch! You need to flatten your layers, resize, save and open up this new file in ACR to apply output sharpening. You can not do it with smart objects.

As for your print test, there are 3 versions of output sharpening, it could be that you need the higher level rather than the standard. As with PK, the level of output sharpening efficiency is in direct correlation to the capture sharpening accuracy. It could be that you need to tune how you use capture sharpening with the output in mind though if you have a method that works then stick with it! My method as Mark has been pointing out is far from simple or even efficient in comparison to PK. I just happen to prefer the control, speed and look of it.
Logged

jljonathan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #27 on: March 19, 2009, 12:07:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Bit confused, your first test confirms what I said above, you can't open a smart object, resize it and then add output to the original smart object which is a) unresized  does not have the changes made by the layers. What you are essentially doing is applying both capture and output as the very first stage of your workflow. Ouch! You need to flatten your layers, resize, save and open up this new file in ACR to apply output sharpening. You can not do it with smart objects

So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that even if I capture sharpen in CR and then open it as a smart object in PS where I add adjustment layers, resize using image size etc. , when I double click on the smart object in PS to open it up again CR, what I am actually adding the output sharpening to is the original raw image and not the layered resized image in PS, and as a result, I am capture and output sharpening to the original raw file. The tif stage is what changes that scenario to capture sharpening a new altered image. Correct?

I do understand that CR output sharpening has three levels of intensity available. So,  I will have to try out the others, especially the stronger, and see the results.
All my output so far is destined for an Epson 3800 printer at 360ppi. Can you please add some specifics to your statement: It could be that you need to tune how you use capture sharpening with the output in mind

Thanks again
Jonathan
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2009, 01:06:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jljonathan
So, if I understand correctly, you are saying that even if I capture sharpen in CR and then open it as a smart object in PS where I add adjustment layers, resize using image size etc. , when I double click on the smart object in PS to open it up again CR, what I am actually adding the output sharpening to is the original raw image and not the layered resized image in PS, and as a result, I am capture and output sharpening to the original raw file. The tif stage is what changes that scenario to capture sharpening a new altered image. Correct?

Exactly correct.

Quote
I do understand that CR output sharpening has three levels of intensity available. So,  I will have to try out the others, especially the stronger, and see the results.
All my output so far is destined for an Epson 3800 printer at 360ppi. Can you please add some specifics to your statement: It could be that you need to tune how you use capture sharpening with the output in mind

Thanks again
Jonathan

Try them and see, what I meant was that you might have to do a slightly higher level of capture sharpening than you would have otherwise. Admittedly by that point, if you don't like the output sharpening, either buy PK or use your own method rather than faffing around with my method which is rather counter intuitive!  
Logged

jljonathan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 143


« Reply #29 on: March 20, 2009, 10:09:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Exactly correct.



Try them and see, what I meant was that you might have to do a slightly higher level of capture sharpening than you would have otherwise. Admittedly by that point, if you don't like the output sharpening, either buy PK or use your own method rather than faffing around with my method which is rather counter intuitive!  

Ben
If I want to futz around with your method, what settings n the 'save as' dialogue for tif, under image compression would be recommended: LZW or ZIP and for layer compression: ZIP or RLE?
Thanks again
Jonathan
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #30 on: March 21, 2009, 12:37:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Honest truth? I have no idea whatsoever. Have to admit that I use 'none'!

Had a funny (in a crying kind of way) incident on Friday. Went into the top pro camera shop in the city to get a couple of prints done on their wide inkjet. Guy takes my disk then says that my files are so big it's going to take 15 mins to load them into PS. There were two 300 meg images on the disk! Open on my simple laptop in well under a minute. Eventually he comes downstairs and with a look of disgust asks me if I've seen my pics at 100% as they are the worst he's ever seen. I asked for my disk back and walked out. Someone who has never seen or heard of output sharpening and insists on valuing a file at 100% on a flat screen to determine print quality is not someone I'm going to trust with printing.

I'll go back to sending these files to my pro lab and getting the great results I'm used to...
« Last Edit: March 21, 2009, 01:21:47 PM by pom » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad