DSLRUsers.com

What do people like to select for their little window to view while adjusting the USM levels? (Something with lots of contrast, something with lots of fine detail, something that has lots of space around it) if anything?

Good question.

I look for a sharp edge, and then try not to over-do the USM by haloing.

Thanks Steve

View the sky every time. Do not want artifacts in the sky. When I see artifacts then I back off a fair bit and then check other detail. If the other detail looks too sharp then back off even further...but never increase the level from the original setting. And always sharpen with the image zoomed to 100%

Good info, thanks a bunch Matt.

I couldn't care less... I'm down to a formulaic use of USM - 170, 0.3, 3 for web images (roughly 1000 pixels on the long side). 120, 0.5, 5 for larger, and 210, 0.3, 1 for intended prints.

Well well aren't you just soooo great Onyx!

Seriously thanks for the info, but you don't ever get prints back that are over sharpened at 210? I've gotten some back that were over sharpened and I don't think I've ever moved the dial up past 200. A most recent pic I was getting halos at about 140 or so.

try this for USM..........open image,set usm at 500% 4 radius 4 threshold, ok, edit menu, fade USM using LUMINOSITY to about 10 to 20%, a good starting point that gives good results.

cheers

bp

Matt. K wrote:View the sky every time. Do not want artifacts in the sky. When I see artifacts then I back off a fair bit and then check other detail. If the other detail looks too sharp then back off even further...but never increase the level from the original setting. And always sharpen with the image zoomed to 100%

'Scuse my ignorance, Matt, but what do you mean by "the orginal setting"?

dooda wrote:Seriously thanks for the info, but you don't ever get prints back that are over sharpened at 210?

Dave, Chi,

It's not as simple as one size fits all. Different images will dictate different settings, depending upon what's actually within the image. It's truly a suck-it-and-see deal.

Thanks Gary,

That's sort of how I always approached it therefore I was surprised that Chi could take such an automated approach and still get consistant results. I think that if you can pull it off that would be great.

Dave,

What Chi is doing is settling upon an acceptable compromise point. That's pretty much the case with any automated technique, of course, where with personal attention to the details, some improvement will always be possible.

The question becomes one of at which point do you accept that you can live with any given level of compromise.

Chi has simply identified that point.

dooda wrote:What do people like to select for their little window to view while adjusting the USM levels?

If it's critical then I turn on the preview and use Photoshop's keyboard shortcuts to control the main image (Ctrl+Alt+0 to view pixel-for-pixel, spacebar+click-and-drag to pan the main image around). That way I get a *much* better idea of what I'm about to do than I can see in the little window.

If it ain't critical - basically what the others said.

HTH

K

gstark wrote:Dave,

What Chi is doing is settling upon an acceptable compromise point. That's pretty much the case with any automated technique, of course, where with personal attention to the details, some improvement will always be possible.

The question becomes one of at which point do you accept that you can live with any given level of compromise.

Chi has simply identified that point.

^^What Gary said. I've stuffed around too much with USM and Photoshop that I no longer have the desire to fine tune settings for images individually. I apply what works - and works fairly well most of the time IMO. Sure, maybe some of my images could be further perfected with greater attention to detail, but I rarely have the time or desire to do so.

Manta
Sorry about the delay in answering your question. When I find the point that introduces artifacts in a smooth tone or the sky then I back off until they have clearly disappeared. This point is the highest setting I will use. In practice a lot depends on the image itself and I used to use many different methods for sharpening images. I have now settled almost exclusively on USM in PSCS because it does a very good job. I might consider using other methods only if I am going to make a very large print. I have never had anyone look at one of my prints and say, "Oh, I see you've used the luminosity method to sharpen this!".

I treat every pic individually as every pic is individual