How much sharpening is needed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter susie
  • Start date Start date
S

susie

Guest
I am trying to do something about my processing knowledge (or lack of), and have had a play with this one, I know its far from perfect but could someone let me know how much sharpening it needs please. I don't see any real difference if I shift the slider to 10 and when I take it further nothing much changes then it suddenly looks totally wrong, I know I don't have the best of screens but surely something should show :bang:
IMG_5561W.jpg
 
That's a GIF so you've lost colour depth (GIF has a max of 256 colours) and it suffers speckles from the dithering.

The better image editors have an unsharp mask filter which, despite the name, gives better results than a straightforward sharpen filter, when used appropriately.

Recommended settings for unsharp mask filtering will depend on the image editor you are using and the image size (broadly: whether it's for screen or print).

Have a kip and get back to us!
 
Sorry, I had saved it as a gif to get it to forum size!! Have changed it to a jpeg but lowered the quaity to get it to upload, is that more help or would a 100% crop be better?

Edited to add this is not for screen or print, but I would appreciate the settings for both so I can try them, I use elements 6 :)
 
looking at your exif I would suggest different settings which would mean far better quality pctures.

your shooting iso 3200 with a shutter speed of 8000 which is rediculoulsy way over the top

drop your iso as far down as you can to achieve say shutter speed of 1600 for example... you will see a vast improvement in quality and you will still stop the action perfectly.
 
Susie,

Am I reading the Exif data right? 3200iso? I'm not sure about this and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but whenever I look at my shots that are high iso the sharpening does seem to jump when I play with it.

Is this a by product of high iso?

Also I find it best to release the slider and allow the pc to do its thing a little at a time. And use the review tick lots and lots and....lots

Chris
 
Kipax, thanks, I will try that next time, I got the 8k speed needed from a pro who was covering the matches hence the 3200 iso to get it!! It was a lot faster than my usual subjects and I had forgotten how big the pitch was (long time since I last went) so I had the 2x on as well which would not have improved things!



Dogyakker, thanks, thats interesting about the high iso and the jump in sharpening I'll have a play tonight and see if its the same with the others that are lower iso's :)
 
susie said:
Kipax, thanks, I will try that next time, I got the 8k speed needed from a pro who was covering the matches hence the 3200 iso to get it!!
Click to expand...

the pro was either pulling your leg or an idiot. really theres absoloutly no need for that kind of shutter speed. On a nice day go iso 400.
 
Shutter speed of 1/8000, gosh now that is going O.T.T
I wonder what sort of pro would offer that sort of advice..and I would like to have a look at his/her photos *smiles*

Even at 1/800 or 1/360 you should be able to get decent stuff, and as you can lower your ISO almost to 100 (depending on your lens) you can see the quality of your images improve drastically.

On the picture, I like the way you've caught the darker horse in mid-air.. nice capture!
 
Going back to the original questions, It doesnt look very soft (being a gif it doesnt help trying to see if it is or not). When I resize a shot (IE take it down to 800x533 pixels) I just use the "sharpen" tool in photoshop (under filters>sharpen). I really should use the unsharp mask but to be honest 9 times out of 10 just a plain old sharpen brings the shot back to how the original looked before resizing. If you have more intricate detail in there such, like a shot with a lot of long grass then this method might over sharpen too much and you will see like an odd white pixelated line appear along the side of objects (IE the grass) in which case I will go for the unsharp mask and play with the sliders.

If you save that as a jpeg at around 8 (never understood what those numbers relate too - but seem similar in all editing packages) it should be small enough to meet gallery size restrictions. I will give use an idea of how much sharpening you could apply :)
 
Thanks all, I am going again in a few weeks so will try at a lower ISO and speed see how they turn out. The pro pics were lovely btw he knew what the purchasers wanted and even though I'm not a polo person I could have bought pics if I had been riding!

GooGaBu, I got quite a few with the horse off the floor, its easier for me because I do know horses and have studied their movement for a long time, but thanks for the comment :)

Jimmy_Lemon, I changed that to a jpeg to try and help get an answer, but it does seem from what you say that its about right for sharpness so it looks as if I have finally got the processing basics into my braincell, I have a feeling I may have used unsharp mask on this one rather than sharpen but it was silly o'clock and I really cannot remember now!!

Thanks everyone for your help, perhaps tonight I will not be playing processing :lol:
 
What focal lengh lens were you using with a 2x converter? As a rough guide you need at least the same speed as focal lengh, and thats the minimum (400mm len +2x converter =800mm 1000/sec aprox minimum) Wayne
 
Your pic is still a GIF - where is the jpeg? Actually your subjects are not moving fast at all - relative to your camera - as you pan the camera the subject is almost stationary - the background moves and may blur slightly - which will help the picture too. You need to work at getting the image right in the camera before you worry about post processing. PP will not help a bad picture but it will improve a good one.
 
swanseamale47 said:
What focal lengh lens were you using with a 2x converter? As a rough guide you need at least the same speed as focal lengh, and thats the minimum (400mm len +2x converter =800mm 1000/sec aprox minimum) Wayne
Click to expand...

That advice is about holding the lens still without camera shake - doesn't take into account subject movement at all.
 
awp said:
Your pic is still a GIF - where is the jpeg? Actually your subjects are not moving fast at all - relative to your camera - as you pan the camera the subject is almost stationary - the background moves and may blur slightly - which will help the picture too. You need to work at getting the image right in the camera before you worry about post processing. PP will not help a bad picture but it will improve a good one.
Click to expand...
Not sure why its reverted to a gif :thinking: I changed it to jpeg so that the exif was there which is how the others knew the settings, will see if I have it in the recycle bin and change it again!

I know the pic is not a good one and I know its not worth keeping, but I am trying to learn processing so I need something to practice on so that if I eventually get a decent one I will know what to do with it!!
 
I need to see a 'decent' one before I can give advice. Don't rely on PP fixing a bad shot - use it to enhance a good shot!
 
It's not a proper gif but a jpeg with incorrect tagging acording to irfanview. Wayne
 
awp said:
I need to see a 'decent' one before I can give advice. Don't rely on PP fixing a bad shot - use it to enhance a good shot!
Click to expand...

Well with my pictures its going to be a long time before there will be anything that would be considered decent on here!!
swanseamale47 said:
It's not a proper gif but a jpeg with incorrect tagging acording to irfanview. Wayne
Click to expand...
Have done it again, hopefully this time it will work.
Kerioak said:
Hi Susie, If you shot it in raw, or still have the original then start from scratch again and then save as a .jpg otherwise you will lose data every time you resave it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I had a jpeg saved and used that as the original has been binned now.
 
Take another pic and start again then - we're here to help!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top