Nik RAW Pre-sharpener

[John 2]

I open my RAW images using Adobe Bridge - Adobe Camera RAW

I have all in-camera and Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) sharpening and noise control turned off.

I do a bit of PP in ACR - I especially like it for rotation and for perspective control

I open my RAW images into Photoshop CS6 because I have never been comfortable with either LR or PSE...

I can work with NIK software from within CS6 by just selecting FILTER>NIK and then selecting the individual NIK software

I use Dfine as my first step after opening from ACR only when I think that the image requires noise reduction. Usually, I do this when I am shooting with ISO 640 or greater with my Canon 5DII and 7D cameras.

I then do a lot of my cloning (such as removing the leads on my rescue dogs) with the CS6 clone tool

Then I will use NIK RAW pre-sharpening

I will then do what I need to do regarding color, contrast, etc...

I will go back and forth using both the NIK Software and the tools in CS6 to complete my PP

Then I save (WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL SHARPENING, SIZING or CROPPING) my image as a Master File Document in PSD format...

From that PSD master file document, I will crop and size and apply output sharpening - depending on my individual output needs.

The saved PSD master document will allow me to crop, sharpen and size the image to my needs and then save in the format (most often JPEG) that I want. I will always have first: the unedited RAW file and second: the edited but uncropped, unsized master image without output sharpening to which I can return and produce a final product as per my needs.

The saved RAW file remains untouched. I have gone back to these files at times when new post production software comes along to do a better job than the ones I have previously used.

Exactly my approach also except that I generally save as a TIF file rather than PSD. Both are uncompressed but the TIF eats up less memory. However, in the link that I have supplied above, the commentator expresses surprise that NIK recommend that you use the pre sharpener before you apply noise reduction and goes on to demonstrate how noise can be minimised to a significant degree by using the pre sharpener alone. Having done this, you can then apply Define 2 if required. I was quite taken with his Pre Sharpener work flow and I will be trying it after viewing his other two videos on Output Sharpening and Define 2.

[Manfred M]

Ive just come back from an engagement party and read all this, im so confused. I'll read again in the morning.

Im even wondering whether you even need to sharpen street photography?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Matt - I can't see any case where you would not sharpen your file when you first open it up to edit.

I can see that there will be cases in street photography where you might not want to do any in-process sharpening. With my own street work, I have done it is some images and not in others.

Output sharpening - if you print, again 100% necessary; for viewing on the net, perhaps not as important unless you are planning to sell the images.

[Nick Ingamells]

I have used this and can't decide! I shoot on Fuji which have their own sharpening problems of course. Currently I'm having more success sharpening in PS using LAB with an USM. There is some excellent advice around about avoiding the worms in Fuji that appear in LR but I find the Nik sharpener a bit coarse.

[Shadowman]

I have used this and can't decide! I shoot on Fuji which have their own sharpening problems of course. Currently I'm having more success sharpening in PS using LAB with an USM. There is some excellent advice around about avoiding the worms in Fuji that appear in LR but I find the Nik sharpener a bit coarse.

Nick,

Are you referring to the default settings or when you make selective adjustments? Have you tried printing your results to compare?

[Manfred M]

I'm having more success sharpening in PS using LAB with an USM.

Using the LAB colour space is a rather unusual approach. Why are you using it rather than one of the more standard RGB ones?

[proseak]

Because haloes are easier to avoid, and will not suffer colour-contamination.

Dan Margulis has a lot to say on the matter. An alternative is to go to CMYK, and just sharpen the black & unwanted channels.

[Manfred M]

Because haloes are easier to avoid, and will not suffer colour-contamination.

Dan Margulis has a lot to say on the matter. An alternative is to go to CMYK, and just sharpen the black & unwanted channels.

There reason I have asked is that I have used the CMYK and LAB methods to test them out and while I understand the theory as to the advantages of doing things in the luminosity (LAB) or black (CMYK) channels, I have found it made little real world difference in my work. Keeping a fairly small radius = no halo issues.

The advantages of the methods (and I am reading Margulis's book) have to be traded off against errors caused by converting between colour spaces and I understand from a few knowledgeable commercial photographers that colour accuracy can be compromised by the conversion process.

[proseak]

There reason I have asked is that I have used the CMYK and LAB methods to test them out and while I understand the theory as to the advantages of doing things in the luminosity (LAB) or black (CMYK) channels, I have found it made little real world difference in my work. Keeping a fairly small radius = no halo issues.

The advantages of the methods (and I am reading Margulis's book) have to be traded off against errors caused by converting between colour spaces and I understand from a few knowledgeable commercial photographers that colour accuracy can be compromised by the conversion process.

It's possible to sharpen much more aggressively in LAB, and CMYK to a lesser extent. As to the colour accuracy question, there's no problem going RGB>LAB>RGB; with CMYK the gamut is smaller and this can sometimes present problems.

Another approach is to sharpen in RGB, then Edit>Fade>Mode>Luminosity.

[Manfred M]

It's possible to sharpen much more aggressively in LAB, and CMYK to a lesser extent. As to the colour accuracy question, there's no problem going RGB>LAB>RGB; with CMYK the gamut is smaller and this can sometimes present problems.

Another approach is to sharpen in RGB, then Edit>Fade>Mode>Luminosity.

The wide gamut to CMYK, whether the starting point is LAB or ProPhoto is a well known issue.

When we were working in LAB and a wide gamut image (think neon colours) and converting the sRGB were were also getting results that seemed to be incorrectly mapped. In retrospect I am not sure if this was a colour space conversion issue or a rendering intent issue. I'll have to do some more digging.

[Pica]

Hello Everybody,
(On the same OP-theme and dialogue during this thread. Have read the thread with interest.)

Background: I'm a seasoned user of sharpening and different tools concerning the same. And I know that during "Three-pass-sharpening", by Fraser & Schewe, Capture sharpening is often motivated by: "The aim is to introduce the correct amount of pre-sharpening that regains the sharpness lost during digitization."

At the same time the authors Scott K. as well as Matt K. convey that using early Capture Sharpening is a matter of "personal preference".

-----

So what I have contemplated for a long time, but haven't come to any conclusion about yet (I agree with you Manfred, Sharpening is a complex topic):

- Is there something that will be missed if one performs OUTPUT SHARPENING at the end only (and perhaps Creative Sharpening)? That is, some characteristics which cannot be recovered during Output sharpening for screen or print, if Capture sharpening is not used? (What in such a case?) Or can everything be compensated for during the late sharpening?

-----

Thank you for your co-operation.

[Shadowman]

My concern would be that a specific action, such as usm; resulted in degrading quality so either halt the process or modify to your taste.