Sharpening: How far will you go?

[Watcher]

If there is a technique or a (magical) digital plugin that can, without additional noise, sharpen an image, so much that the pores of a model appear in a shoot, will you use it?

[mpenza]

there's a limit to sharpening. over sharpening will result in halos and result in an artificial looking pic.

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by mpenza there's a limit to sharpening. over sharpening will result in halos and result in an artificial looking pic.

I know if you use USM. But... WHAT IF? That is all I'm asking.

[defn]

Originally Posted by Watcher If there is a technique or a (magical) digital plugin that can, without additional noise, sharpen an image, so much that the pores of a model appear in a shoot, will you use it?

hehe i think u watch too much tv...

[SuRfTeC]

Originally Posted by Watcher If there is a technique or a (magical) digital plugin that can, without additional noise, sharpen an image, so much that the pores of a model appear in a shoot, will you use it?

ermm... is there any software of this kind??
don't mind giving it a try... and see how good the picture turn out..

please share the software can...? (if there is one)

cheers

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by SuRfTeC ermm... is there any software of this kind?? don't mind giving it a try... and see how good the picture turn out.. please share the software can...? (if there is one) cheers

A few interesting sharpening tools around, most have a trial period. I heard good things about focal blade...

[zaren]

Originally Posted by Watcher If there is a technique or a (magical) digital plugin that can, without additional noise, sharpen an image, so much that the pores of a model appear in a shoot, will you use it?

Definitely. However, such a thing does not exist. It is not possible to extract more photographic information after you take the image.

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by zaren Definitely. However, such a thing does not exist. It is not possible to extract more photographic information after you take the image.

Sigh,
In that case, what is interpolation then? In any case, normal sharpening can be interpreted as increasing the amount of information in an image so you statement is false.

[oeyvind]

try Fred miranda's CS Pro... it does work.

[ST1100]

Originally Posted by Watcher Sigh, In that case, what is interpolation then? In any case, normal sharpening can be interpreted as increasing the amount of information in an image so your statement is false.

Hi Watcher. Zaren is spot on.

Interpolation is sizing up an image so that it does not get pixelated. It does not create information out of nothing. If it could, we can print giant billboards from handphone cameras simply by sharpening the pictures.

Take for example a small signboard with lettering in a picture. If the original lettering is unreadable, it will not be readable no matter how much you ress it up or sharpen it. The info was not in the picture in the first place.

You have confused sharpening with resolution. Sharpening is a technique of enhancing edges by increasing its contrast so that the mind perceives the picture as 'sharper' - but no new information is gained. In fact, you lose information in the sharpening process near the edges.

You also cannot get the (original) pores and blackheads if they were not captured in the first place.

[rncw]

Originally Posted by oeyvind try Fred miranda's CS Pro... it does work.

yes agreed, so far the better actions i've tried for sharpening (FM intellisharpen v3).
in fact most of the fred miranda's actions are pretty cool, especially the 16bit digital velvia, stair interpolation v2.2, ISOX v3 (noise reduction)..etc.

[Watcher]

Originally Posted by ST1100 Hi Watcher. Zaren is spot on. Interpolation is sizing up an image so that it does not get pixelated. It does not create information out of nothing. If it could, we can print giant billboards from handphone cameras simply by sharpening the pictures. Take for example a small signboard with lettering in a picture. If the original lettering is unreadable, it will not be readable no matter how much you ress it up or sharpen it. The info was not in the picture in the first place. You have confused sharpening with resolution. Sharpening is a technique of enhancing edges by increasing its contrast so that the mind perceives the picture as 'sharper' - but no new information is gained. In fact, you lose information in the sharpening process near the edges. You also cannot get the (original) pores and blackheads if they were not captured in the first place.

I disagree. There is more information, but not what you want. Let me explain.

Take 4 pixels in a square like -> :: When you interpolate by say, adding a additional pixel, it calculates the value of the new pixel to say linearly (it can be with say Genuine Fractal or any algo) with the equation 0.5(x1+x2), etc, each way. After interpolation, the 2x2 becomes 3x3. Now, this takes more memory => more information. This is derived information, etc. It may not be what you wanted, nor can it recreate information you did not capture, but information nevertheless. Photoshop and Shannon Claude will agree with me.

Now, when you sharpen, in particular when using USM, the radius parameter alters the surrounding pixels. This causes the change in the overall information in the file. Some examples are artifacts when you oversharpen. What was not there now is present. Regardless whethere it is wanted or otherwise, isn't that more information?

As for you bulletin board example, lets put it this way: if the original was stored as vector rather than raster, there will be no problem.

The pores could be due to the fact of the anti-alias filter making the image soft or that the interpretation of the RAW information is not correct, resulting in a improper image. Don't believe the latter is possible? Go and search on DPReview comparing the various RAW converters when the Adobe RAW Converter v1 for PS7.01 came out.

I originally measured information by the size of a file compressed by JPEG, comparing a picture that is not sharpen and after it has sharpened

[sykestang]

Originally Posted by Watcher As for you bulletin board example, lets put it this way: if the original was stored as vectors rather than raster, there will be no problem.

Agreed... that's the different with graphics/Photo stored in Freehand format and graphics stored in TIFF format.

[stroma]

Originally Posted by Watcher If there is a technique or a (magical) digital plugin that can, without additional noise, sharpen an image, so much that the pores of a model appear in a shoot, will you use it?

If you want pores shoot macro !!

[Ah Pao]

Let me have a try in this:

Data != Information

By interpolation, you are creating more data, but not information. Information is processed, useful data. Data that is not useful is known as noise. You can't create new information out of what is not captured by the sensor, in this context. To put in the discussion in pespective, if the image sensor didn't capture the image of a blackhead, no amount of interpolation can recreate the image of the blackhead.

(Apparent) sharpness is more or less an increase of contrast at the edges.

Vector graphics are mathematical representations of lines & shapes, and therefore can be scaled infinitely large or small without distortion. f(x) -> y.

Anyway JPEG and peceptual coding and all the cheem cheem information theories are beyond me, so can't comment on why artifacts appear in highly compressed JPEGs.

[jsbn]

Hmm.... I usually do USM once, at 50% level. Sharpening... well... Used to do it aggressively when I was a noob last year. Not now anymore.

[user111]

in-camera sharpening saves me time from having to sharpen in editing

use this lazyman method if u prefer convenience

for me it works nice

for others..depends

[zekai]

much ado debate about nothing...