Adobe Lightroom’s most important (and least known about) feature

LongStreet

Automatic (yes, AUTOMATIC) input sharpening and noise reduction of images captured in RAW format.

Read all about it here.

Manfr3d

I think what is important to understand is that as important as input
sharpening is (it is turned on by default btw) does not replace the
output sharpening which one should apply as the last step in postprocessing
using photoshop for example. I don't know what others think about LR
output sharpening (you can set it in the export dialog btw.) but I believe it
is much less effective (and precise) than what photoshop unsharp mask
can/will give you.

arodney

Actually, LR supports output sharpening for export or in the print module (screen or ink jet). Its far more effective than trying to do the workflow in Photoshop where part of the process is based on LR. So you don’t necessarily have to conduct output sharpening in Photoshop. Plus the output sharpening in LR is using the capture sharpening in Develop (they are kind of joined at the hip). The output sharpening expects capture sharpening from Develop. The sharpening workflow is based on the work of Bruce Fraser as described here: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

Manfr3d

arodney wrote: »

Actually, LR supports output sharpening for export or in the print module (screen or ink jet).

Thats what meant to say. I wasn't aware one can do it in the print module as well. But there are reasons not to do it in the LR print module.

arodney wrote: »

Its far more effective than trying to do the workflow in Photoshop where part of the process is based on LR. So you don’t necessarily have to conduct output sharpening in Photoshop. Plus the output sharpening in LR is using the capture sharpening in Develop (they are kind of joined at the hip). The output sharpening expects capture sharpening from Develop. The sharpening workflow is based on the work of Bruce Fraser as described here: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

If you want to print from LR that is. Otherwise you need to do it in PS.
The later is technically the better choice because there you can use the
Photokit Sharpener Plugin for PS (if you bought it that is) which uses
better algorithims for sharpening than are available in LR or PS alone.
I believe Bruce Fraser is/was one of the founders of this Plugin.

I'd need to look that up but I remember Mr. Reichman talk about it with
Jeff Schewe in one of the Printing Tutorials from the LL.

arodney

Manfr3d wrote: »

Otherwise you need to do it in PS.
The later is technically the better choice because there you can use the
Photokit Sharpener Plugin for PS (if you bought it that is) which uses
better algorithims for sharpening than are available in LR or PS alone.

Its not really better, its different. Is only useful for output to ink jet print where PKS provides output sharpening for other types of devices (Contone, Halftone etc). In LR, you don’t have to resize the image for print output to sharpen like you do in PKS because the master image is sized and sharpened based on the template in Print.

IF you want to do the printing (and print sharpening in PS), then best to use PKS from start to finish there OR do it start to finish in LR. Mixing the two makes the workflow and final process more dicey. PKS uses output sharpening based on its capture sharpening just like LR but the process is different. In LR, the data is a different state all together (linear based).

I believe Bruce Fraser is/was one of the founders of this Plugin.

Yes (as am I). :-)

pathfinder

I have reservations about routine presets for capture sharpening and noise reduction, since for me at least, these are so image dependent, even if shot with the same camera.

Hence, I have chosen not to utilize these methods that Longstreet posted in the first post.

I can appreciate why some folks may find them helpful. But since my images may be of vastly different subjects, lighting, and desired final appearances, I will choose to continue to do my sharpening on an image, by image basis, as well as my noise reduction.

arodney

pathfinder wrote: »

I have reservations about routine presets for capture sharpening and noise reduction,

They get you in the ball park. If all you are doing is building a web gallery or low rez JPEGs, they are time savors. But you need to season to taste for the best quality.

Its somewhat useful to build noise reduction presets per group of ISO (100, 400, 800 etc) then set LRs preferences to apply based on camera ISO and serial, again producing a decent starting point for batch processing. If you import say 100 images, and even if only 49 need minor tweaking, thats still 51 that do not. Much less work than Photoshop. Plus whatever preset you apply, its non destructive with a history that remains after you quit the app, so you can always go back and alter those initial settings.

colourbox

pathfinder wrote: »

I have reservations about routine presets for capture sharpening and noise reduction, since for me at least, these are so image dependent, even if shot with the same camera.
Hence, I have chosen not to utilize these methods that Longstreet posted in the first post.

I do use them but I think that the use of the word "automatic" is not really correct. The sharpening and noise reduction are not automated - they do not analyze image content or even exposure - it is actually just a simple filtered default preset, applying certain defaults by filtering the camera and ISO.

As such, they make a great starting point. It is a great convenience to have all my ISO 1600 already set to a higher NR default than my ISO 100 or 200 images, and also a great convenience to have separate, appropriate defaults for my raw P&S vs my raw SLR images. Setting these presets is worth doing and can save time.

But in the end all images must be revisited to determine the correct final amounts. Underexposed images usually need more NR, as an example.

pathfinder

I understand that they can be timesaving if you have lots of similar images to work through, and that they are really only metadata edits, so that they can be redone at anytime later. But if that is the case, they really haven't saved that much time for me, and high frequency images, same camera and same ISO, still may need slightly different handling than dark low frequency images. I also have an idea of what the numbers are for my different cameras as well.

Not really trying to start and argument, just pointing out that one does not need to feel they need to incorporate this feature in their workflow, if they are willing to edit image by image. If it helps folks, great, go for it!!

I will frequently make use of the Synchronize tab in ACR or LR3 when editing images shot under the same lighting that will all need very similar RAW adjustments for color balance and exposure.

Manfr3d

arodney wrote: »

Its not really better, its different. Is only useful for output to ink jet print where PKS provides output sharpening for other types of devices (Contone, Halftone etc). In LR, you don’t have to resize the image for print output to sharpen like you do in PKS because the master image is sized and sharpened based on the template in Print.

IF you want to do the printing (and print sharpening in PS), then best to use PKS from start to finish there OR do it start to finish in LR. Mixing the two makes the workflow and final process more dicey. PKS uses output sharpening based on its capture sharpening just like LR but the process is different. In LR, the data is a different state all together (linear based).

Yes (as am I). :-)

Thanks for the interesting insight Tony. I have much to learn and you just reminded me of that very fact

LongStreet

arodney wrote: »

They get you in the ball park. If all you are doing is building a web gallery or low rez JPEGs, they are time savors. But you need to season to taste for the best quality.

Its somewhat useful to build noise reduction presets per group of ISO (100, 400, 800 etc) then set LRs preferences to apply based on camera ISO and serial, again producing a decent starting point for batch processing. If you import say 100 images, and even if only 49 need minor tweaking, thats still 51 that do not. Much less work than Photoshop. Plus whatever preset you apply, its non destructive with a history that remains after you quit the app, so you can always go back and alter those initial settings.

Bingo!

And very well stated. This is exactly what I was trying to convey in the article.