Is there a logical reason why one is preferred over the other or it does not make any difference either way?

Edit: I meant resize as in downsizing the image.


Assuming you're talking about downsizing the image, the reason you would sharpen after the resize is because resizing, itself, usually results in some sharpening. That allows you to tailor any remaining sharpening needs based on the current state of the image.

Now, if you're upsizing the image, then a consideration is that sharpening often has some artifacts (halo effect) and so scaling up the image also scales up the artifacts. In that case, sharpening after the fact takes that effect out of the equation.

Having said all that, I still usually sharpen before a resize and just account for it. The reason is that I have the resize and save process defined as an action in Photoshop, so that's my last step. It works, especially with practice given a specific camera.

  • Yes, I meant resize as in downsizing the image... I edited the question as well. – Viv Jun 4 '12 at 3:22
  • You said "resizing...results in some sharpening", does that include resizing (downsizing) when saving for web as jpeg? I use Bicubic Sharper when downsizing and saving for web as jpg, but I've never seen the photo look better than the original after doing so... – SAFX Aug 7 '12 at 18:14
  • @RaffiM - Usually is the operative word and it depends on the amount of the resize and quality level of the JPEG compression. – John Cavan Aug 7 '12 at 19:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.