Originally Posted by arodney Its because there's nothing particularly smart about it. Bruce Fraser examined it in great detail and didn't find anything useful to incorporate into PhotoKit Sharpener. And like all manual sharpening, you're supposed to guess at the correct values by viewing an image which just doesn't work, sharpening isn't WYSIWYG and probably never will be (not until we have high resolution displays). Your display is somewhere between 72-105ppi output device, your printer is far higher than that. In the old days, the advise was to sharpen so at 100%, the image looked "slightly crunchy" whatever that means. And today, with modern ink jets, you're not going to get anywhere close to viewing the image correctly at 100% (25% is maybe a bit closer). Anyway, its a big guessing game. If you have ONE output device and media, you could "bracket" sharpening and make a print, then at viewing distance, pick the one that works for you. Some masking is also necessary (you don't want to sharpen shadows, that's where all the noise lives).

Thank you Andrew, for your candor. That has kind of been my gut impression, from trying to make sense of Smart Sharpening, and never really finding I like it any better than I can do in other ways - masks, layers, blend if, etc.

Are their serious artists who use Smart Sharpen in preference to other methods? If there are, I would be delighted to hear their opinions as well. Maybe we'll get some interesting views in the new thread CA posted for this purpose.

R.I.P to Ginger_55
One of Charleston's Own. Great works.

Prayer from Michael Fischbach

I realise this thread was last replied to over a year ago, but I came across a link to it today after browsing through the tutorials offered by the site and I make no apologies for my late response.

I'd like to thank whoever wrote it for providing such a clear and easily understood article. For a novice to photography like myself, I suspect the information contained within will prove to be invaluable.

Of course, I knew what sharpening was and could see for myself the effects of applying it, but now have a better understanding of exactly how it works and the function of each of the three sliders.

Welcome to dgrin, Nyte!

Originally Posted by arodney with modern ink jets, you're not going to get anywhere close to viewing the image correctly at 100% (25% is maybe a bit closer). .

I've been driving myself crazy trying to find an acceptable sharpening look...I use PhotoKit Sharpener and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion like this. I'm wondering if looking at the image at a certain size other than 100% could give me a better idea of how sharp the print will look at proper viewing distances....I know it's based on print size but I'm trying to gauge this for the largest prints available through BayPhoto and then accept what comes out at smaller sizes....33% 50% 66%????? once I get to 100% it all starts to look a bit crunchy to me?? thanks for the input!

Originally Posted by Rather27 I've been driving myself crazy trying to find an acceptable sharpening look...I use PhotoKit Sharpener and I was wondering if anyone has an opinion like this. I'm wondering if looking at the image at a certain size other than 100% could give me a better idea of how sharp the print will look at proper viewing distances....I know it's based on print size but I'm trying to gauge this for the largest prints available through BayPhoto and then accept what comes out at smaller sizes....33% 50% 66%????? once I get to 100% it all starts to look a bit crunchy to me?? thanks for the input!

Depending on the output, you most certainly want to be viewing at something other than 100% (and something that looks crunchy at 100% may print beautifully). For a high quality Inkjet, you might indeed want to view at 25% (see http://www.schewephoto.com/workshop/...ColorPrint.pdf)

Originally Posted by arodney For a high quality Inkjet, you might indeed want to view at 25% (see [url http://www.schewephoto.com/workshop/PerfectColorPrint.pdf[/url])

so for Bay Photos printer ( continuous tone printer I think?) this would work also?

Originally Posted by Rather27 so for Bay Photos printer ( continuous tone printer I think?) this would work also?

I am guessing that a contone print would require more subtle sharpening than for an image that is screened. It should be very easy to output two test prints of the same image with different sharpening, the cost of testing photo lab output is ofen cheaper than for other output.

I would probably compare 3 tests of the same image, no sharpening vs. two levels of sharpening - one subtle sharpen that looks good at 100% view with no overt halos, vs. one that looks good at a reduced view of 25%.

When you get the prints back, compare them to the screen view at 100% and 25%.

One may also wish to test viewing at 100% only and then moving back further than for normal viewing distance and compare this to the view at 25%.

So many subjective and personal things to test!



Stephen Marsh

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx
http://prepression.blogspot.com