Which sharpening looks best here?

[Abitconfused]

Is the first image too sharp? Is the second image about right?
Unsharp Mask Sharpened at Amount 235, Radius 3.4, Threshold 8...



Second sharpening: Amount 128, Radius 2, Threshold 2...



Nikon D7100, Sigma 18-35mm @ 25mm, f/1/8 ISO: 640, 1/100s...

[Mike Buckley]

I like the sharpening in the first one because of the increased detail but I don't like the halos. Try using the sharpening in the second one with a touch of Local Contrast Enhancement only on the birds to bring out the detail.

[Shadowman]

First appears sharper.

[FrankMi]

Hi Ed, without seeing the original, it would be hard to know how much sharpening would be needed. If the numbers you are using are for sharpening after resizing then they are both likely higher than needed.

Colin Southern posted an excellent response to the question of removing noise and sharpening images with some excellent examples in this link.

[Stagecoach]

Ed, my comment is that both images clearly show what appear sharpening artifacts around almost all edges, and that is not something I would want to be seen.

But,

The artifacts can also be caused by download and file transfer process so the question arises, can you see these on your screen before you upload to wherever?

Grahame

[Abitconfused]

First image has no sharpening...



Second image has sharpening to Lightness channel in LAB Mode at Amount: 200, Radius: 2, Threshold: 1...

[Stagecoach]

First image has no sharpening...

But still shows the artifacts around edges?

[Abitconfused]

Using Focus Magic at 10%...



Trial but full function version

[Abitconfused]

Checked it to be sure. No sharpening in below image. I Image > Size the 127MB image to 10 inches wide at 180 PPI. Then I save that file using Save for Web to obtain a file of 289K.

[jcuknz]

I think it is safe to say that the dpi/ppi and inches have absolutely no connection or relevance. You should work out how many pixels you require to display here and reduce to that size. I have my own size but I know others have different so I will not stipulate anything. I use 700 or 600 pixels across for horizontal images like your carcasses. But I guess it is possible that your editor doesn't permit you to work that way.

[Stagecoach]

Ed,

Looking at the Exif of that image it is 1599px wide suggesting that if you used TinyPic, it has downsized it. The problem with TinyPic downsizing your image (or any other process you are not aware of) is that you do not know what/how it does to it.

The process I always use is to simply convert my RAW/TIFF/PSD to a Jpeg at 1200 to 1400 px wide for a good viewing size in the lytebox if someone want to see it large. After downsizing I then apply a sharpening level specific for web viewing. I never use the Save to Web option.

But back to the image. The one in post No 9 still shows the halo artifacts so I would think the first thing is to try and find out why.

As for the image, is this one you are simply sharpening because it's a keeper or is it one you are using to test different sharpening methods?

If I was undertaking a test of different sharpening procedures and methods I think I would choose an image with far more clearly defined sharp edges where halos and artifacts can be seen more easily against a darker background.

Grahame

[revi]

Afew remarks:
- Am I right in thinking this image was taken through a glass window?
- Perhaps it would be better to show (also) 100% crops of parts of the image, at a size that fits comfortably in a normal screen (so that there's no reduction in the lightbox, say 800x500 pixels final size?) Having to zoom makes comparing the different versions more difficult than necessary.

As for using a different subject to test sharpening, I'm not sure that would work. It would help to see the differences between the methods/settings, but I'm not at all sure that all subjects require the same sharpening.

[xpatUSA]

Checked it to be sure. No sharpening in below image. I Image > Size the 127MB image to 10 inches wide at 180 PPI. Then I save that file using Save for Web to obtain a file of 289K.

Ed, I feel that the image, your post #9, has too much contrast to benefit from any sharpening. In particular, local- or even micro-contrast increases image acutance, in this case - a lot. Voila:



Analyzed with ImageJ. Accidentally saved as a GIF, but you get the idea.

Counter-intuitively, I reduced the contrast in Curves, applied a little Gaussian smoothing and down-sampled using Lanczos. Then sharpened at 0.3px, 0 threshold, 85 amount:



Particularly, please do observe the flatness but with spikes at each end of the histogram at left, as compared to that at right.

RawTherapee, with it's comprehensive array of local contrast and sharpening tools is perfect for difficult images, see this crop:



Impressive bokeh, Ed!

My experience is that a) sharpening is not always needed and b) if it is, the amount required is quite dependent on the scene and subject(s) . . . plus how good your lens/focusing is and how steady your hand is, lol.

[Abitconfused]

Wow! A lot to think about here. Plus, all these ducks are eaten by now...

[Brev00]

I prefer #1. How do you intend to display or share the picture? Hopefully not at a farm right by the duck cages.

[Abitconfused]

I like 1 also because it projects more drama. Those of us into Photoshoping will see irregularities 99% of the public will not. They will simply see shapes, color and imagery. I may print this but most of my images remain in digital format. I would like to sell some but wall space at popular locations is limited. I may travel to some hospitals and/or doctors offices with images but by the time they are printed and framed and hung on the wall even a doctor will cringe at the price. Besides who needs some dead ducks in an operating waiting room? Just kidding!! I have some other stuff that would take the boredom out of any waiting room. But, then again (yes the glass is half empty this morning) you and I may stare at a print for some time but the average waiting room patron, or victim as the case may be, is still wondering why his kindergarten teacher made him use red for chimneys.