Archive 2012 · how to sharpen for the web?
p.3 #1how to sharpen for the web?
Sharpening often adds brightness to interior areas and when the sharpened image is viewed those areas look brighter. But in the process, tonal or color gradient get wiped out. The end result is a sort of gritty look. Leaves with detail at full size become single color/tone blobs.
The real problem is that the detail including tone and color gradations is lost in the crunch. There is no way to compress an image 6x1 or more without losing this detail.
Downsizing is a curse with no true cure. For web viewing, I think it best to present the image with halo free sharpening and forget about how to preserve the detail of the original.
The boatyard unsampled TIFF above is sharp enough for web just as it is shown before sharpening. After all, web viewing is crippled viewing.
Also, 1280 Pixels? The landscape forum has a pitiful max of 850.
The real problem is that the detail including tone and color gradations is lost in the crunch. There is no way to compress an image 6x1 or more without losing this detail.
Downsizing is a curse with no true cure. For web viewing, I think it best to present the image with halo free sharpening and forget about how to preserve the detail of the original.
The boatyard unsampled TIFF above is sharp enough for web just as it is shown before sharpening. After all, web viewing is crippled viewing.
Also, 1280 Pixels? The landscape forum has a pitiful max of 850.
Oct 27, 2012 at 08:31 AM
p.3 #2how to sharpen for the web?
In the end it seems to come down to personal taste. I like a crispy image and do not worry about some minor halos, others prefer less sharpened images without any sharpening artifacts.
If the limit here was 850px i would emigrate somewhere else
.
If the limit here was 850px i would emigrate somewhere else
.Oct 27, 2012 at 08:47 AM
p.3 #3how to sharpen for the web?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
In the end it seems to come down to personal taste. I like a crispy image and do not worry about some minor halos, others prefer less sharpened images without any sharpening artifacts.
If the limit here was 850px i would emigrate somewhere else.
Yep, I quit landscape, but some are posting 36mp images there and get pretty crispy looking after the big crunch.
The etiquette seems to be to make it easy to view on slow connections or small screens. Maybe this is a by product of travelers who use their laptops from campgrounds as many landscapers do.
I find the smallest decent size for my 21mpixel images is 1900 displayed at 26 inches wide.
In the end it seems to come down to personal taste. I like a crispy image and do not worry about some minor halos, others prefer less sharpened images without any sharpening artifacts.
If the limit here was 850px i would emigrate somewhere else
.Yep, I quit landscape, but some are posting 36mp images there and get pretty crispy looking after the big crunch.
The etiquette seems to be to make it easy to view on slow connections or small screens. Maybe this is a by product of travelers who use their laptops from campgrounds as many landscapers do.
I find the smallest decent size for my 21mpixel images is 1900 displayed at 26 inches wide.
Oct 27, 2012 at 09:11 AM
p.3 #4how to sharpen for the web?
for alundeb:
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2012mixed/fmaltgear2012/alundeb_jonas_replica.jpg
Above we have two rows of crops from the 1280 web image. The top row is yours from post #5 last page. I tried to follow your recipe, to the letter, by:
1) Resizing, NN, to 5120
2) added gaussian blur 1.6 pixels
3) Resizing, NN, to 1280
4) Smart sharpen, 0.4 pixels, 100%
5) Unsharp Mask, 0.2 pixels, 100%
The result is the bottom row. I guess I missed something?
(And, out of interest, did you have time to work anything with the Alt Iceland Tour? I haven't posted in that thread but I'm medium interested. That may turn into highly interested depending on How, When and price.)
http://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2012mixed/fmaltgear2012/alundeb_jonas_replica.jpg
Above we have two rows of crops from the 1280 web image. The top row is yours from post #5 last page. I tried to follow your recipe, to the letter, by:
1) Resizing, NN, to 5120
2) added gaussian blur 1.6 pixels
3) Resizing, NN, to 1280
4) Smart sharpen, 0.4 pixels, 100%
5) Unsharp Mask, 0.2 pixels, 100%
The result is the bottom row. I guess I missed something?
(And, out of interest, did you have time to work anything with the Alt Iceland Tour? I haven't posted in that thread but I'm medium interested. That may turn into highly interested depending on How, When and price.)
Oct 28, 2012 at 07:33 AM
p.3 #5how to sharpen for the web?
Hm Jonas, the difference is huge, and the only factor I could think of causing such a difference, is if the downsizing is not really Nearest Neighbor, even if you ask for it.
I tried the recipe but with bicubic downsizing instead, and then got very close to your result. I use CS5. Can you try with bicubic and see what happens then? Do you see any difference?
In any case, the first step must NOT be NN. Using NN on anything but a whole number ratio, will cause periodic displacements of detail. So bicubic for the first small resize
I tried the recipe but with bicubic downsizing instead, and then got very close to your result. I use CS5. Can you try with bicubic and see what happens then? Do you see any difference?
In any case, the first step must NOT be NN. Using NN on anything but a whole number ratio, will cause periodic displacements of detail. So bicubic for the first small resize
Oct 28, 2012 at 11:17 AM
p.3 #6how to sharpen for the web?
I like resizing in steps and have now started resizing height and width separately and only do sharpening once the file is in final size. The default sharpening is 0,2 150-200 and sometimes two passes if I feel the image needs it. Some images require different sharpening for different parts so sometimes I use adjustment layers to control the amount of sharpening depending on areas an for eliminating halos.
And sometimes I feel lazy and do direct exports from LR with (screen && high).
And sometimes I feel lazy and do direct exports from LR with (screen && high).
Oct 28, 2012 at 12:32 PM
p.3 #7how to sharpen for the web?
alundeb wrote:
Hm Jonas, the difference is huge, and the only factor I could think of causing such a difference, is if the downsizing is not really Nearest Neighbor, even if you ask for it.(...) So bicubic for the first small resize
Hi
That made it. I didn't get the exact same result as you but close enough. Thank you for the tip(s)!
Hm Jonas, the difference is huge, and the only factor I could think of causing such a difference, is if the downsizing is not really Nearest Neighbor, even if you ask for it.(...) So bicubic for the first small resize
Hi
That made it. I didn't get the exact same result as you but close enough. Thank you for the tip(s)!
Oct 28, 2012 at 12:55 PM
p.3 #8how to sharpen for the web?
sebboh wrote:
what's wrong with an unsharpened tiff?
Because it's NOT unsharpened. Look at it at 200% It has sharpening applied to it prior to his uploading of it.
Bifurcator wrote
But this TIFF image has already been sharpened. So more sharpening (or trying to show a different method all together) just messes it up. Without posting the RAW this is senseless IMO.Because it's NOT unsharpened. Look at it at 200% It has sharpening applied to it prior to his uploading of it.
Oct 29, 2012 at 01:42 AM
p.3 #9how to sharpen for the web?
AhamB wrote:
Capture sharpening is standard. It will be negated anyway when you downsize.
Btw, your idea of "microcontrast boosting" isn't bumping clarity to 100, I hope?
WTH is "capture sharpening"? AFAIK in-camera sharpening only applies to jpegs. There may be some in in-camera" Tiffs tho... I dunno. I thought not.
Clarity as Adobe describes it and is obvious by looking at it has nothing to do micro-contrast. It's a mixture global contrast boosting and "smart sharpening".
I mean using one of the many micro-contrast boosters in place of sharpening when doing the stepped reduction method and using "Best For Smooth Gradients" when doing the reductions. The amount that it "sharpens" the image is of course controllable but no matter how much you apply you never get halos unless they already exist - Like they do in the supplied TIFF. So, I can't show it using the supplied image because he already sharpened it producing halos. Here's a quicky example I did but where his processing produced halos I selected them out for the final step.
Also no, halos do not go away when downsizing an image. In fact they usually accentuate and become more obvious.
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/Temporary/resizeMe.jpg
Bifurcator wrote
But this TIFF image has already been sharpened. So more sharpening (or trying to show a different method all together) just messes it up. Without posting the RAW this is senseless IMO.Btw, your idea of "microcontrast boosting" isn't bumping clarity to 100, I hope?
WTH is "capture sharpening"? AFAIK in-camera sharpening only applies to jpegs. There may be some in in-camera" Tiffs tho... I dunno. I thought not.
Clarity as Adobe describes it and is obvious by looking at it has nothing to do micro-contrast. It's a mixture global contrast boosting and "smart sharpening".
I mean using one of the many micro-contrast boosters in place of sharpening when doing the stepped reduction method and using "Best For Smooth Gradients" when doing the reductions. The amount that it "sharpens" the image is of course controllable but no matter how much you apply you never get halos unless they already exist - Like they do in the supplied TIFF. So, I can't show it using the supplied image because he already sharpened it producing halos. Here's a quicky example I did but where his processing produced halos I selected them out for the final step.
Also no, halos do not go away when downsizing an image. In fact they usually accentuate and become more obvious.
http://tesselator.gpmod.com/Images/Temporary/resizeMe.jpg
Oct 29, 2012 at 02:08 AM
p.3 #10how to sharpen for the web?
Phillip Reeve wrote:
@bif if we based it on the raw we would compare raw converters and personal taste, not re-sizing algorithms. Anyway, here is the unsharpened tif, i am courious about your method
OK, I missed this post before I did my edits - which actually I did only about 30min. after you posted it but didn't reply till just a little while ago.
I'll try it again with this file maybe if there's more interest. My down-scaling doesn't add any halos at all BTW. In PS the "best for smooth gradients" actually blends nearest neighbors. It might be similar to the 0.4 pixel gaussian blur that was used on the previous page.
Thanks!
@bif if we based it on the raw we would compare raw converters and personal taste, not re-sizing algorithms. Anyway, here is the unsharpened tif, i am courious about your method
OK, I missed this post before I did my edits - which actually I did only about 30min. after you posted it but didn't reply till just a little while ago.
I'll try it again with this file maybe if there's more interest. My down-scaling doesn't add any halos at all BTW. In PS the "best for smooth gradients" actually blends nearest neighbors. It might be similar to the 0.4 pixel gaussian blur that was used on the previous page.
Thanks!
Oct 29, 2012 at 03:42 AM
p.3 #11how to sharpen for the web?
Bifurcator wrote:
Capture sharpening is standard. It will be negated anyway when you downsize.
Btw, your idea of "microcontrast boosting" isn't bumping clarity to 100, I hope?WTH is "capture sharpening"? AFAIK in-camera sharpening only applies to jpegs. There may be some in in-camera" Tiffs tho... I dunno. I thought not.
Capture sharpening is a term for the sharpening you apply (at full size) to negate the effect of the AA filter that most cameras have.
AhamB wrote
Bifurcator wrote
But this TIFF image has already been sharpened. So more sharpening (or trying to show a different method all together) just messes it up. Without posting the RAW this is senseless IMO.Btw, your idea of "microcontrast boosting" isn't bumping clarity to 100, I hope?
Capture sharpening is a term for the sharpening you apply (at full size) to negate the effect of the AA filter that most cameras have.
Oct 29, 2012 at 07:50 AM
p.3 #12how to sharpen for the web?
Bifurcator wrote:
I mean using one of the many micro-contrast boosters in place of sharpening when doing the stepped reduction method and using "Best For Smooth Gradients" when doing the reductions. The amount that it "sharpens" the image is of course controllable but no matter how much you apply you never get halos unless they already exist (...)
Would it be possible for you to share the method? I would like to try something like this out. Step by step instructions even?
I mean using one of the many micro-contrast boosters in place of sharpening when doing the stepped reduction method and using "Best For Smooth Gradients" when doing the reductions. The amount that it "sharpens" the image is of course controllable but no matter how much you apply you never get halos unless they already exist (...)
Would it be possible for you to share the method? I would like to try something like this out. Step by step instructions even?
Oct 29, 2012 at 11:21 AM
p.3 #13how to sharpen for the web?
Bifurcator wrote:
what's wrong with an unsharpened tiff?Because it's NOT unsharpened. Look at it at 200% It has sharpening applied to it prior to his uploading of it.
indeed, but he posted an unsharpened one later. there is no need to ever look at something at 200% unless you have poor eyesight, it doesn't add anything to looking at 100%.
sebboh wrote
Bifurcator wrote
But this TIFF image has already been sharpened. So more sharpening (or trying to show a different method all together) just messes it up. Without posting the RAW this is senseless IMO.indeed, but he posted an unsharpened one later. there is no need to ever look at something at 200% unless you have poor eyesight, it doesn't add anything to looking at 100%.
Oct 29, 2012 at 12:19 PM
p.3 #14how to sharpen for the web?
That's your own opinion. It doesn't apply to me at all. I often NEED to see it at 200%, 300% and 400% to know what's going on, how things work, what the original image contains, etc. etc.
I'll post a step by step in a little bit... an hour or two most likely.
I'll post a step by step in a little bit... an hour or two most likely.
Oct 29, 2012 at 09:29 PM
p.3 #15how to sharpen for the web?
Bifurcator wrote:
That's your own opinion. It doesn't apply to me at all. I often NEED to see it at 200%, 300% and 400% to know what's going on, how things work, what the original image contains, etc. etc.
I'll post a step by step in a little bit... an hour or two most likely.
not really an opinion, i did say it depended on your eyesight. there is no change in the information displayed at 100% versus 400%, anything above 100% is just pretending you have a lower res monitor. if one can distinguish the individual pixels on your monitor at normal viewing distance, then blowing something up beyond 100% doesn't accomplish anything for them. it also means that you are stuck seeing stair step patterns in diagonals no matter what downsizing algorithm you use.
That's your own opinion. It doesn't apply to me at all. I often NEED to see it at 200%, 300% and 400% to know what's going on, how things work, what the original image contains, etc. etc.
I'll post a step by step in a little bit... an hour or two most likely.
not really an opinion, i did say it depended on your eyesight. there is no change in the information displayed at 100% versus 400%, anything above 100% is just pretending you have a lower res monitor. if one can distinguish the individual pixels on your monitor at normal viewing distance, then blowing something up beyond 100% doesn't accomplish anything for them. it also means that you are stuck seeing stair step patterns in diagonals no matter what downsizing algorithm you use.
Oct 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM
p.3 #16how to sharpen for the web?
OK, here's my attempt, with a slightly tweaked variant on my usual quick-and-dirty re-sizing script. Using the "convert" command line tool from GraphicsMagick:
convert -unsharp 0x1.0+1.3 -unsharp 0x2.0+0.6 -unsharp 0x4.0+0.3 -filter Hanning -quality 98% -interlace line -resize 1280x1000 -unsharp 0x0.3+0.7 resizeMe.tif resizeMe.jpg
with pre-sharpening at various scales, followed by a slightly under-sampling downscale and final re-sharpening. I've recently switched to a MacBook Pro with retina display, which has really thrown off my ability to tell what images will look like on "normal" resolution displays, so I'm a bit unsure about my sharpening-for-web procedure these days.
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20121029_sharpen/resizeme.jpg
convert -unsharp 0x1.0+1.3 -unsharp 0x2.0+0.6 -unsharp 0x4.0+0.3 -filter Hanning -quality 98% -interlace line -resize 1280x1000 -unsharp 0x0.3+0.7 resizeMe.tif resizeMe.jpg
with pre-sharpening at various scales, followed by a slightly under-sampling downscale and final re-sharpening. I've recently switched to a MacBook Pro with retina display, which has really thrown off my ability to tell what images will look like on "normal" resolution displays, so I'm a bit unsure about my sharpening-for-web procedure these days.
http://praetoriusphoto.images.s3.amazonaws.com/fmforums/20121029_sharpen/resizeme.jpg
Oct 29, 2012 at 11:11 PM
p.3 #17how to sharpen for the web?
'Oversharpening at FM is as bad as the HDR-frenzy was a couple of years ago.'
Thank you, these all look very very digital.
Highlights lose tonal range and tone differentiation, saturation and acutance amps up unnaturally and three dimensionality suffer badly - as everything is preternaturally 'sharp' and the viewer's eye is affronted as a result. I guess it is an aesthetic choice.
Thank you, these all look very very digital.
Highlights lose tonal range and tone differentiation, saturation and acutance amps up unnaturally and three dimensionality suffer badly - as everything is preternaturally 'sharp' and the viewer's eye is affronted as a result. I guess it is an aesthetic choice.
Oct 30, 2012 at 12:11 AM
p.3 #18how to sharpen for the web?
sebboh wrote:
. it also means that you are stuck seeing stair step patterns in diagonals no matter what downsizing algorithm you use.
No. Blowing something up beyond 100% with NN is lossless reverisble. Just use NN back to the original size.
. it also means that you are stuck seeing stair step patterns in diagonals no matter what downsizing algorithm you use.
No. Blowing something up beyond 100% with NN is lossless reverisble. Just use NN back to the original size.
Oct 30, 2012 at 12:34 AM
p.3 #19how to sharpen for the web?
alundeb wrote:
No. Blowing something up beyond 100% with NN is lossless reverisble. Just use NN back to the original size.
sorry, i meant being able to distinguish individual pixels at normal viewing distance on your monitor means that your are cursed to see stair step patterns no matter what.
sebboh wrote
. it also means that you are stuck seeing stair step patterns in diagonals no matter what downsizing algorithm you use.sorry, i meant being able to distinguish individual pixels at normal viewing distance on your monitor means that your are cursed to see stair step patterns no matter what.
Oct 30, 2012 at 12:43 AM
p.3 #20how to sharpen for the web?
sebboh wrote:
No. Blowing something up beyond 100% with NN is lossless reverisble. Just use NN back to the original size.sorry, i meant being able to distinguish individual pixels at normal viewing distance on your monitor means that your are cursed to see stair step patterns no matter what.
Ah, yes.
To all of you who have a problem with my and others crazy pixel sharp images:
Just back off from the monitor a little. At a certain distance, everything falls into place, the detail looks fine and sharp but not unnatural, no stair steps, tonal gradations look fine, the 3D feel is back.
alundeb wrote
sebboh wrote
. it also means that you are stuck seeing stair step patterns in diagonals no matter what downsizing algorithm you use.Ah, yes.
To all of you who have a problem with my and others crazy pixel sharp images:
Just back off from the monitor a little. At a certain distance, everything falls into place, the detail looks fine and sharp but not unnatural, no stair steps, tonal gradations look fine, the 3D feel is back.
Oct 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM