Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
kevindar wrote:
Mark, this is useful.
so you are saying on 4k or 5k monitors, you can over sharpen without realizing it, b/c it does not show the halos? and that in print they would show? is there a particular size of print "larger" where its susceptible to showing?
Is it that once edited on a 4K and then exported for web size (1200x800), the halos show when viewed on a non-4K monitor? just trying to better understand.
Thank you very much, Kevin. Thank you for your encouragement. It is not only my full-time vocation to educate myself and educate others about photography and post-processing, but it is also my passion, incredible gratitude and privilege. I spend about 14-15 hours a day, 6-7 days a week obsessively studying, testing, educating myself or teaching/sharing all things photography and post-processing. I have been steady at this for about 16 years now, and remain more focused than ever about staying on the cutting edge as things keep progressing and changing very fast.
So here are your questions (in bold) and my best crack at respective basic answers:
"So you are saying on 4k or 5k monitors, you can oversharpen without realizing it, b/c it does not show the halos?"
Absolutely. At the critical key viewing distances we need to see, evaluate and judge them, not only do these monitors NOT show the halos as they really are, they also do not show us the various other types of over-sharpening artifacts, such at "graininess" getting out of control, and other forms of artifacting patterns. The bottom line is that the 4K and even worse, 5K monitors are widely distancing themselves from what we need to see to create better quality files with less degradation and damage. This disconnect and gap is currently broadening. Some authorities are saying that the mathematics of the next generation of 8K monitors (coming very soon) might end up being much better, but we do not know for sure yet.
"Is there a particular size of print "larger" where its susceptible to showing?"
The rule is this: the larger the print, the worse it gets. Very generally I'd say that largely depending on the amount of damage done to the file, you can easily begin to run into noticeable issues on enlargements going over, say 18 inches. An 8x12 or so should generally be fine because it is so small and condensed. But when one steps up to a quality 24" (inch) fine art print, or 30", or 36", or 40", 50", 60", 70", 80", 96"+ the issues get exponentially worse and usually even hideous!
One of my consistent services over the last 10+ years has been to make or help photographers make quality gallery enlargements of all types and sizes (from all types of camera systems and even film scans) for all kinds of output including very high-end galleries. At times I have literally had the incredible privilege of being able to fill up huge galleries with tens of thousands of dollars of work. This sheer volume of work has afforded me the incredible opportunity of being able to learn and put to the test what really works best, and what hinders, harms or even destroys the ability to create a quality enlargement.
The 4K and 5K issues are now becoming epidemic. In master print guru Robert B Park (Nevada Art Printers - Lumachrome HD) and my "THE ULTIMATE FINE ART PRINTMAKING WORKSHOP" in Las Vegas we get asked this specific or very similar questions. Roberts basic answer is that the overwhelming vast majority of files being sent in for printing today have moderately bad to terrible sharpening artifacting damage in them, due to sometimes photographers not knowing HOW to sharpen appropriately for enlargement, and/or not being able to see the damage they are doing. It is a HUGE issue today. It is sometimes found in web images as well. At least for his lab, he advocates for keeping a layer in the stack with absolutely NO SHARPENING in it, so that if he needs to, he can dial back peoples sharpening, or even redo it.
"Is it that once edited on a 4K and then exported for web size (1200x800), the halos show when viewed on a non-4K monitor?"
I too am trying to more fully understand the various minutia and ins and outs of this issue. But, YES!
I find that a majority of photographers take their master finished original size file (Tiff, PSD, PSB or whatever noncompressed file format) and usually (first) they do not know how to ideally pre-sharpen it (or they do not know NOT to pre-sharpen in many situations). Far too many people do not know how NON-ideal and Damaging the Adobe default sharpening (Detail Tab in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw) is at its base setting of:
Amount 40,
Radius 1, and
Detail 25 (See image).
This is a terrible default setting, and I advocate heavily for turning it OFF and then creating a New Preset (with it off). That slider is not designed for general sharpening. It is intended for "Pre-Sharpening/Capture sharpening." This is something I find in my workshops that most photographers are confused about (and should be because of the amount of misinformation out there and lack of good information).
Then after they size the image down for web, somtimes they also do not employ good or ideal sharpening practices/protocol. Then to top that off, now it is becoming harder (and even impossible) to see the actual 1:1 (100% real pixels) quality of the sharpening. Sometimes it is the 4K, or worse 5K monitors, and sometimes it is how a display (like a MacBook Pro) emulates or represents your image, not showing you the real deal.
The bottom line on this is that photographers serious about the quality of their web presentation, and/or serious about the quality of their precious master files, and/or serious about their potential print/enlargement quality are now having to take a more active approach to be able to see what is really going on in their precious files.
For more serious printmakers Robert and I are recommending keeping or acquiring a quality, lower than 4K monitor! A bit sad to say, but this is where we are today. Robert is the best at monitor suggestions but ideally a 10bit monitor lower that 4K is the ticket (and some are better than others). If anyone reading along here want those recommendations I would say call his boutique fine-art lab Nevada Art Printers" and ask them.
(702) 337-1623
I know that some of the wide gamut Dell Ultrasharp's (I have one) are very good. Attached (image) is a recommendation Robert gave to one of our Workshop participants. Robert is a FM member (that is how I got to know him over the earlier years) but has been so busy with his lab I have not seen him responding here much lately.
Also, attached as an image is a representation of the haloing, and what it could look like erased out. For web, it is best to sharpen on a layer, and then erase or mask out the indications of over sharpening. Like I said above, I thank FM member and wonderful photographer Floris Van Breugel for sharing that approach with me here on this forum many years ago (pretty sure it was him). I have employed it from then to this very day.
Lastly, for images that have been permanently damaged by sharpening halos, there are some really cool techniques using "Lighter Color" or "Darker Color" Blending Modes in Photoshop (in conjunction with the clone tool or the Healing Brush tool in Replace mode - which essentially is cloning) to be able to clone them out easily without affecting anything but the halos! Robert taught this in our last workshop and we were all blown away!  The other image here represents that.
BAD Sharpening Defaults in Adobe Lightroom/Adobe Camera Raw
A couple of monitor suggestions
Sharpening Halo either omitted to begin with or cloned out using the "Lighter Color", "Darker Color" technique.
|
