Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Print Sharpening  (Read 8280 times)
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« on: October 26, 2009, 03:47:56 PM »
ReplyReply

In the second edition of Real World Image Sharpening, Jeff Schewe discusses many aspects of sharpening using Photoshop/Camera Raw/Lightroom and does so with authority and in great detail. Its an excellent book.

But how best to apply the learnings from there to Aperture? Do we Aperture users have a "Jeff Schewe" as an expert in the inner workings of Aperture's sharpening algorithms? Who?

If not, and its up to us, then how do we best make use of the print sharpening controls in Aperture. It is widely understood that print sharpening depends on the size of the desired print, the resolution of the output file and the media type (glossy or matte). Schewe describes the selection of print sharpening as "essentially a deterministic process." So there should be math that defines the right print sharpening based on the input parameters.

Does anyone know how to translate Schewe's recommendations on print sharpening as described in the book (and from his days at PixelGenius and PKSharpener) into the right values for the Sharpening Amount and Sharpening Radius sliders we have in Aperture's print output dialog?

Bob
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2009, 06:05:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bob Rockefeller
Does anyone know how to translate Schewe's recommendations on print sharpening as described in the book (and from his days at PixelGenius and PKSharpener) into the right values for the Sharpening Amount and Sharpening Radius sliders we have in Aperture's print output dialog?

Best you can really hope for is to render the master and do capture/creative and output sharpening in Photoshop.
Logged

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

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2009, 05:23:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Best you can really hope for is to render the master and do capture/creative and output sharpening in Photoshop.

I find Aperture's capture sharpening (Edge Sharpening) to be as good as anything else I've ever used.  For print sharpening I'm not so sure.  I prefer to export to PSD, resize as required in Photoshop, and then output sharpen.  I use Nik Sharpener these days. It's more user friendly than PK sharpener and delivers at least as good results. I don't use Nik Sharpener as a plug in in Aperture as that requires creating a new version at the the required output size anyway - and I find Photoshop's resizing algorithms to be a touch better (although frankly no non-photogeek viewer is ever going to tell the difference...)
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
DesW
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2009, 08:08:03 PM »
ReplyReply


Hi all,

Topical and informative gents on this thread-- nice to see--

I output Phase backs/Canon/ Nikon Files--some we blow to 3M' for Lightjet printing some for Fine Art Offset Books (CMYK)

I've tested and observed results for damn near every sharpening plugin/ action/ FOB/etc out there,. and while PK Sharpener 'Creative Brushes" are fine-- the blanket sharpening actions give a rather strange wicker basket effect to the file

-- something I find offputting.

The cleanest most precise Sharpening comes from Dan Margulis's Hiraloam, with 10D Finisher second --well for our applications anyway which are Landscape /Advertising/ Fashion/ Catalogues.

I only sharpen for the final Output none whatsoever in Camera nor RAW conversion.

Good Shooting,

DesW
Logged
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 09, 2009, 02:03:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DesW
I only sharpen for the final Output none whatsoever in Camera nor RAW conversion.

As you know, there are many who see sharpening in three steps:

Capture - to restore "natural" sharpening lost by the analog to digital conversions and high pass filters
Creative - to emphasis some photo aspects, commonly the eyes in a portrait
Output - based on final image size, image resolution, and output media

I agree with David, Aperture's edge sharpening brick is very capable. Its kind of like Lightroom's sharpening, but with the edge mask already built in. I can get done what I want to get done with it.

But output (really only for print) sharpening in Aperture seems too basic with just amount and radius sliders. And there is no creative sharpening beyond a round trip to Photoshop or a sharpening plug-in.

If I were to follow Jeff Schewe's advice about print sharpening, and wanted to get a sharpening halo of between 1/100" and 1/50" I should be able to select a sharpen radius setting with knowledge of the output resolution. For example, if I'm printing a file at 792 dpi (I know Aperture and/or the printer driver will downsize that to 360 dpi for my Epson R1900), I'd need a radius of about 8 to get a sharpening halo of 1/100", true? But 8 sounds like a big number, maybe only because the image resolution is so high.

I know the sharpen amount is in relation to my output media, but how do I figure the setting for matte, or glossy paper?

Bob
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2009, 02:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bob Rockefeller
I know the sharpen amount is in relation to my output media, but how do I figure the setting for matte, or glossy paper?

Bob

I take in on good authority (Eric Chan) that my particular Epson printer (3800) will perform better if it doesn't have to do any resampling.  Since I can't resample in Aperture (well ok, I can, but it isn't pleasant) I export to Photoshop for printing. In Photoshop I resample and then use Nik Output Sharpening.  Since I don't print all that much it really isn't a problem for me. And anyway, it helps to stop me forgetting how to use Photoshop :-)
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Bob Rockefeller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2009, 06:07:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: drm
I take in on good authority (Eric Chan) that my particular Epson printer (3800) will perform better if it doesn't have to do any resampling.  Since I can't resample in Aperture (well ok, I can, but it isn't pleasant) I export to Photoshop for printing. In Photoshop I resample and then use Nik Output Sharpening.  Since I don't print all that much it really isn't a problem for me. And anyway, it helps to stop me forgetting how to use Photoshop :-)

But I thought that Aperture would resample on output, so the printer doesn't have to, if you unchecked the "Use Best DPI" box and put the "right" dpi for your printer in the text box. Not true?

Bob
Logged

Bob
-----------------
Robert J. Rockefeller
Richmond Hill, GA
www.bobrockefeller.com
Arthur Clune
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2009, 04:39:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Bob Rockefeller
But I thought that Aperture would resample on output, so the printer doesn't have to, if you unchecked the "Use Best DPI" box and put the "right" dpi for your printer in the text box. Not true?

Bob

It does for me. The only PITA is that it only resizes on output so to do print sharpening you have to export first (set up a preset to do the resizing), reimport,  sharpen then export again (this time at the image native resolution)
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 26, 2009, 12:38:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Arthur Clune
It does for me. The only PITA is that it only resizes on output so to do print sharpening you have to export first (set up a preset to do the resizing), reimport,  sharpen then export again (this time at the image native resolution)


Exactly. So you might as well print from Photoshop.  What is missing is the ability to create a version with a specific, fixed output size. Then you could use Aperture print sharpening . and print in general. This seems to be one area where they didn't fully think things through.

Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad