43

First, this is a really nice photo! Well done. If the folks at Shutterstock don't like this one, print it and hang it on your wall. I think my photos look sharp but is there anything that I might be doing wrong? Here are some of the things I can see, and I'm not nearly as eagle-eyed as a photo editor would be: chromatic abberation: CA is most prominent ...


14

Caleb has done a nice analysis in his answer of a number of issues, but the biggest thing to me is that your image has been murdered by JPEG compression in some areas. Looking at this 1:1 crop from the left-hand side: You can see that it's not sharp at all. There could be a number of reasons for this: Your original image wasn't sharp in that area. You ...


12

To me, it looks like you have compression artifacts in your image (by zooming in on edges, it seems like there is some ringing). Lower the compression rate to remedy the problem or use a raw image format. Otherwise, I agree with Caleb that this is a really nice photo! I would love to have a framed version of this hanging in my living room.


11

There's two mistaken statements in your simple question: first, that sharpening is always needed for digital photographs, and second, that it's not needed in film. Let's start with the second. Film actually isn't fundamentally different here. Scanned photos often benefit from digital sharpening to match the output medium. But not even digital: the common "...


9

It seems that the problem is caused by having Digital ICE turned on for B&W photos. See example here. It's worth noting that the preview must be made again if the Digital ICE checkbox is changed.


8

I don't think it's a sharpening issue so much as an image quality issue (and possibly image compression). There is a large amount of lateral chromatic aberration in the skyline. If you're shooting RAW, Lightroom can help you fix most of this. In Lightroom 5+, you can find a check-box in the develop module under Lens Corrections → Color. For any stock ...


6

It is because the camera is previewing a compressed JPEG on screen with lower resolution than the actual image is. The algorithm of downsampling the image is sometimes too rough to show a nice image. When you zoom in, you are actually zooming out less, the downsampling is not that rough and the result is closer to the "reality". This is not a concern at ...


6

Since you've updated that you shot this with a 6D on a tripod, I can definitely say that I see what looks like a lot of ISO noise that was desperately covered up with way too much noise reduction. Really a lot - on both counts. I had actually originally thought this might have come from a compact camera the quality was so poor - it feels like the kind of ...


6

I only used a lens which only goes up to f5.4, is this the issue? The F-number in lens specs is usually the max aperture (lowest F-number). Most lenses are capable of closing the aperture to obtain smaller apertures (higher F-number). Make sure the entire product fits within the Depth of Field. DOF is region around the focal plane where subjects will appear ...


5

Yes, using deconvolution you can invert any linear map from a hypothetical sharp image to a (hypothetically noise free) unsharp image. The actual image you have is not just an unsharp image caused by diffraction it also contains noise which will limit the effectiveness of deconvolution. In general, the problem is easy to describe. A point in the scene that ...


5

Deconvolution can in principle allow you to reverse the unsharpness, but this works best when you have low noise images and you can extract the so-called point spread function accurately. Your camera settings caused a blur because a point in the scene affects not just one pixel but a group of pixels. The profile of the gray values is called the point spread ...


4

It always depends on what type of picture you are processing, and what you want to achieve in that picture. Are you processing a macro photo? A landscape? A portrait? How is the depth of field in the picture? Where does the attention of the viewer needs to be attracted? All these question will influence the way you process your image, respectively the ...


4

When I am trying to absolutely maximize the sharpness, the premise that I start from is that I am not trying so much to increase the sharpness, but to minimize everything that reduces the sharpness. Beyond the basics of lens & body, shooting raw, cleaning lenses, filters, sensors, optimizing F-stop / ISO, etc. : Tripod: beyond using a tripod, the ...


4

All of your "interpretations" are technically incorrect because there is nothing in the statement or context (as you've described) to imply any of them. You shouldn't read more into the statement than what it actually says. That is not to say that there is no underlying reason for the statement, just that you cannot divine what that reason is. That said, ...


3

Ideally, output sharpening is always dependent on the target medium. Optimal quality needs an image which was resized and sharpened for the intended viewing conditions. A high-res display needs a larger image than a low-res display, and a screen needs differnt sharpening than a print, all of which should, eg., be handled automatically by the Lightroom ...


3

It depends on what your output is going to be. There is no simple answer to the proper amount of sharpening. Any number of factors can impact your decisions on processing an image. How it will be displayed, what the lighting will be like where it is displayed, what type of medium will be used to display it, what kind of feeling you want the display to ...


3

There is absolutely nothing about this photo that requires a camera more advanced than your Canon 60D and a $100 lens. The basics are: Good lighting — a whole topic to itself Stop down the aperture a bit, which you can because lighting is good Nail focus, which is less critical because you stopped down In post-processing, crank sharpening and "clarity" up ...


2

Yes, all the convolutions you mention could be combined into a single one for final implementation. However, it makes sense to break the individual requirements apart in the user interface. A raw convolution kernel function is difficult for even someone trained in such things to mentally derive or convert to the time domain (in this case actually space ...


2

Well, for one thing, output sharpening is resolution- and device-dependent. When it gets right down to brass tacks, you'd sharpen differently for different papers on the same printer and at the same resolution if you're at all interested in making the best possible print — a printer/paper profile may compensate for colour and (to a somewhat lesser extent) ...


2

In USM (unsharp masking) radius is not the size of the kernel, but related to sigma. A good rule of thumb is that actually visible radius of the effect is close to radius * 3.3. So USM with the "radius" of 0.3 is pixel-level sharpening.


2

Sharpening at that level is usually done with a deconvolution sharpener, such as the Smart Sharpen filter in Photoshop/Elements (or at higher radii, using a plugin like Topaz Labs InFocus). Unlike the usual sharpening tools like Unsharp Mask, which are just edge/contrast enhancers, deconvolution sharpeners attempt to compute what the data would have looked ...


2

Ideally you should sharpen each image individually. Different images may need diffent amount of sharpening. If you sharpen after putting the images together, you will also sharpen the boundaries between the images. This will make the boundaries stand out more than they would otherwise, and may also cause artifacts around the boundaries.


2

The problem appears to be the "preview" doesn't work right. If you zoom to 100% it appears to match your settings. When you zoom out on preview, it will not match your settings. It is very annoying. My old version, CS5, works fine so I use that for Smart Sharpen.


2

Let's illustrate what Unsharp Mask is doing: Take image, let's call it I. Create a blurred version of it using Gaussian Blur with radius r. Let's call it B. Let's create High Pass image H by H = I - B. Let's create the Unsharp Image U by U = I + a * H. Now, the Radius r used in Gaussian Blur is exactly the radius in the Unsharp Mask. The Amount parameter ...


2

Unfortunately I can't help you with regards to software recommendations, however keep in mind that to obtain good sharpness on print you will need to take into consideration the paper type - gloss / matt / fine art textured etc. (assuming the image is of sufficient size without major upscaling). Sharpness settings would vary depending on the lens used for ...


2

It's most likely a problem with versions The plugin you downloaded is said to be version 1.5 and though it says (emphasis mine): Version 1.5 updated for Gimp 2.2 and later The official help pages for GIMP scripting says (again, emphasis mine): Plugins have been a feature of GIMP for many versions. However, plugins written for one version of GIMP can ...


2

In focus stacking, one tries to only use the in-focus areas of every picture to generate a larger depth of field. Think of it as multiple pictures above each other with masks, and only the in-focus areas are opaque. When referring to super-resolution, we usually talk about eliminating noise or doing very slight sensor shifts, therefore getting a higher SNR ...


2

In your situation Focus stacking is not the answer simply because there's nothing sharp in your image. Best to polish it up a bit in post and call it done or purchase some better glass. This is about all I can get out of it:


1

does an amazing job of automagically sharpening photos for a given print size. Ok I really do not know what automagically is. I do not know what specific sharpening for a given print size is either. I was watching the software and it does not do anithing special, in fact in my opinion it has deceiving explanations and examples. In my opinion use gimp and ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible