Do you sharpen?
 

.....and what method do you use. I think I must have tried most methods but what about you

In Photoshop I only use Unsharp Mask. In PaintShopPro I have occasionally used Sharpen with some good results depending on the levels in the photo but generally it is always Image > Mode > Lab> Lighten and then unsharp mask and then back to RGB

The fly photo I just posted was sharpened after putting it through Neat Image. But normally I find it just adds noise.

Despite all sorts of sharpening software on my pc, I still end up using Photoshop USM. My prints tend to look the same no matter if it's sharpened with the latest trendy software or good old fashioned USM.

After I downsize for the web, I'll often use smart sharpen in Photoshop.

I may tweak a few bits on an image (catchlight in eye) with the sharpen tool set at around 10-20%

I find I'm using far less sharpening these days compared with a couple of years ago, some shots barely need any at all.

I find that digital images are far cleaner than scans and as Andy says simple USM is as good as anything. I suppose if I used ISO 1600 and above, then I would use fancy techniques. There is a good one that uses the find edges filter to generate a mask so that the sharpening acts on the edges, and not on the noise elsewhere.

Leif

And this is really why I posed the question to begin with. I really do feel that there has rarely been a need for me to use any sharpening recently, maybe even for as much as a year. I remember when I first had the 10D I would sharpen as a matter of course, I just felt those files needed it. I suppose I used jpeg most of the time then and was just beginning to use Raw for important stuff. I always had in camera sharpening set to factory default however so perhaps jpegs needed that extra bit of usmin Photoshop.

Now of course for the last couple of years at least I have used Raw soley and in camera sharpening has no effect anyway, though the default sharpening in CS2 and ACR must I suppose have a bearing on it. I have for the last year also been using a laptop as my main machine, it has a super 17" widescreen and I think it does naturally make the images appear sharper than on a CRT monitor.

Then there is this new 1D I'm using, I'm not sure if it has definately had an effect on the sharpness of my images, but undoubtedly the 1.3 crop will make some difference. The fact is I rarely need to sharpen at all anymore, except perhaps occasonally the bicubic sharper setting in Save for Web, but for prints they are tack sharp.

How often do you see oversharpened pictures and the halo effect seen along areas of high contrast like skylines etc. Its a common sight it seems to me even amongst the images of some pro shooters. When I've needed to I've found that some careful use of the Smart Sharpen tool can avoid this, I have to say however I have really not seen much advantage in this lab method some use, especially when I see halos in their shots too. I can understand the principle behind it, though little evidence it is better than other methods.

Most of the time I just use unsharp mask but I prefer several very light applications rather than a single heavier "hit". I think this provides a more natural result and it doesn't leave a horrible halo.

Last week I downloaded Intellisharpen from the Fred Miranda site http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/IS and I'm very impressed by it. It's essentially a complicated set of actions that's automated into a Photoshop plugin. It's well worth a try.

Do I sharpen? Very, very rarely. When I do, I find there's not much difference, until I get to the point where it gets halos and it looks horrible. When I do sharpen, I find the most usable tool to be Smart Sharpen in CS2.

So, no, I don't find I need to in 99% of all cases.

Duncan.

I find the Adobe plugin Smart sharpen from Chroma usefull sometimes.

Is there a general rule of thumb regarding USM values to use in PaintShopPro and Photoshop?

Roy

It is difficult to be prescriptive about these things, as all files are different. I would say that usually as little as possible is good policy. If you are getting halos along points of high contrast on web images, you know its too much. I rarely go above an amount of 50 and radius of 1. The think is to experiment, and don't let it increase the contrast too much either

I have a book on Elements 3 which suggests as an "all purpose setting" Amount 85%, Radius1 Threshold 4. For soft subjects (flowers, puppies,people etc) Amount 150%, Radius 1, Threshold 10. Portraits (head and shoulders) Amount 75%, Radius 2, Threshold 3. Moderate sharpening (product shots, landscapes) Amount 225%, Radius 0.5, Threshold 0. Maximum sharpening for slightly fuzzy photos Amount 65%, Radius 4, Threshold 3.
I have only used the all purpose and it seems to work well as just that.

It seems that my approach is much the same as Stephens. Generally the amount is kept below 50 with a radius of 1. Keeping an eye on any areas where the local contrast starts to increase dramatically. The threshold I keep between 0 and 5 dependent of noise levels in the image.

Over the years as I've upgraded the quality of the glass the degree of sharping I need to do is much reduced compared to budget glassware shots.

This pretty well falls in-line with Mike's Figures from the book.

I have just posted a thread about the Picture Style settings in my 1D Mark II N, which I’m trying to understand.

According to page 53 of the manual, the parameter settings (sharpness, contrast, saturation, colour tone) available in the Picture Style options, DO have an effect on RAW images, although I haven’t verified this yet.

I have replied to your other thread Paul. Essentially though whilst I accept the POI I would question the need to use these parameter settings if using Raw

I use PS7 USM. If I'm going to use neatimage I use the USM until afterwards.

Do you find though that this can negate some of the work Neatimage has just done.

sometimes .. i use the duplicate layer ... high pass ..hard light about 15% .. opacity slider 20%.. merge down layers as an alternative to usm

It probably puts a little noise into the pic, but not enough to cause a problem. I find that Neatimage tends to make the picture look phony and flat if Im use it to remove all the noise. I frequenty set Neatimage to remove only half the noise bcause I like the look of the finished product better that way.