Does anyone have any suggestions for a good Black and white sharpening workflow. I scan with an epson v-700, use a mac edit in photoshop, try to eyeball, using unsharp mask but I feel like I could get more precise. I print on an epson 3800.

I've yet to see a better tool to sharpen scans than
Focus Magic. Look it up.

Yes, it's not free.
Yes, with enough patience and trial and error, one can make USM approach its results.
Yes, there is a bit of hype on the advertising: if that's a crime, the whole world is criminal...
No, I don't have time for all the alternatives: too many photos to do it on.

So, I coughed up a licence for Focus Magic. Never regretted it:
works a treat for both b&w and colour.

Thanks I'll check that out. I saw another thread where someone mentioned an action they used similar to what you would get in photo kit, using a high pass filter. Does anyone have that action?

Ctein has an interesting piece on high pass sharpening on Mike Johnston's blog--

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/10/high-pass-sharp.html

Lately, I use Smart Sharpen in CS2 more than USM.

Ctein has an interesting piece on high pass sharpening on Mike Johnston's blog--

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/10/high-pass-sharp.html

Lately, I use Smart Sharpen in CS2 more than USM.

The high pass sharpening is a pretty good thing because it is non destructive. You can delete the layer and try again any time. With smart sharpening you either get it pretty quick or not at all. "Buyer's remorse" is not an option with smart sharpen. Thank goodness smart sharpen is so good.

I spent a lot of time working with all sorts of techniques, paid for commercial sharpening filters and all. In the end, I came back to USM with a mask to sharpen what I want....

Lenny

Here's a tip if you use smart sharpen (or any of the sharpen filters in PS): Convert the layer to be sharpened to accept smart filters (filter -> convert for smart filters). Any sharpening you apply is then applied as a smart filter - i.e. it isn't baked into the image, so you can tweak it's settings later on if need be (as well as editing its associated mask in the usual fashion, changing its blending mode if you want, and also adjusting its opacity).

g'day all

can someone explain and show examples of how/why these add on bits of software sharpen any better than the sharpening tools in PS?

USM applied in LAB to the L channel works well for me.

G;day, Ray. Have a gander at my gallery for plenty of examples of Focus Magic at work, both on film scans and dslr.
More examples:

this (http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/winter%20skeletons.jpg) is XP2 on my Arax, with a Flekkie 50/4.

this (http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/16%20recession.jpg) is Astia 100 with a Sigma 24-70/2.8: the smallest letters on the bottom right corner can all be clearly read on full size scan.

this (http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/nice%20wheels.jpg) is Fuji Superia 400 with a Nikkor 50/1.4, you can see a detail of the rego plate of the red car on the bottom right here (http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/20mp-10mp-8mp.jpg), that's a full size crop of the 20mpixel scan, followed by downress to 12 and then 8mp (it's part of my "show the dslr-breaths what even 400 ISO speed film can do" act). :p

I have no doubt lots of folks with plenty of time can do the same with multiple passes of USM in PS, or GIMP or any of the layered editors out there. I just prefer to slap FM on the scan output, make a cuppa and it's ready before I finish shaking the sugar in. ;)

hi Nuno

i'm not sure that your images prove anything

why do you need so much sharpening?

why do sharpen as first procedure?

shouldn't sharpening be the last thing done?

how does any of this show that film/scanning is superior to digital capture? if one believes they can be compared in this way

my post, original file from 10mp digital SLR, original image quite unsharp due to camera shake from slow shutter speed, small part cutout and keep at full res, rest of image resized to 800 x 600 pixels at 72 ppi, small part laid on top, then resized again to fit here, 550x360pixels, sharpened as required once at each stage with USM mid range settings in Micrografx Picture Publisher

all of which proves, what?

Er..... where did you find anywhere that I do sharpen as the first procedure?
It's said nowhere, nor implied. Perhaps you thought I was using it immediately after the scan when I said I use it "on the scan output"?

If that's the case, let me clarify: " scan output" means simply something that came out of the scanner. Not that it is done immediately *after* the scan! There are a few other process steps in between. Sharpening is the last step.

I don't need "so much sharpening": that is the whole point. I just set FM to minimal sharpening and in one go it does what would take me a long time to achieve with USM.

As to proof of "better than digital capture": that is not the point I made, nor do I think it was anywhere in my reply?
If you think so, I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the point and all I can say is: read again what I wrote.

Or better yet: if you are really keen on seeing differences between dslrs and film, read this (http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/) and this (http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/).

One more thing: I *do* have a late model 10MP dslr as well so I speak with full knowledge of dslrs. It's no match in detail for any film at anything less than 800ISO. >=800, yes.

But that is far from the point of my reply which was about sharpening. Nowhere was it said it was the first step.

Er..... where did you find anywhere that I do sharpen as the first procedure?
It's said nowhere, nor implied. Perhaps you thought I was using it immediately after the scan when I said I use it "on the scan output"?

If that's the case, let me clarify: " scan output" means simply something that came out of the scanner. Not that it is done immediately *after* the scan! There are a few other process steps in between. Sharpening is the last step.

I don't need "so much sharpening": that is the whole point. I just set FM to minimal sharpening and in one go it does what would take me a long time to achieve with USM.

As to proof of "better than digital capture": that is not the point I made, nor do I think it was anywhere in my reply?
If you think so, I'm sorry but you seem to have missed the point and all I can say is: read again what I wrote.

Or better yet: if you are really keen on seeing differences between dslrs and film, read this (http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20107727/) and this (http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/).

One more thing: I *do* have a late model 10MP dslr as well so I speak with full knowledge of dslrs. It's no match in detail for any film at anything less than 800ISO. >=800, yes.

But that is far from the point of my reply which was about sharpening. Nowhere was it said it was the first step.

wow, you need loosen your nuts just a little

the comments i made are after reading your post

as for "this" and "this" why are trying so hard to justify film usage? your kind of paranoia does nothing to move the argument forward, though i doubt it needs moving forward

yes, film is "better", yes your right, film capture is different to digital capture, so stop trying to compare them in meaningless ways

and here's another couple of ideas for you, sublety, deep of field and selective focus

wow, you need loosen your nuts just a little

the comments i made are after reading your post

as for "this" and "this" why are trying so hard to justify film usage? your kind of paranoia does nothing to move the argument forward, though i doubt it needs moving forward

yes, film is "better", yes your right, film capture is different to digital capture, so stop trying to compare them in meaningless ways

and here's another couple of ideas for you, sublety, deep of field and selective focus
Ray,

Most experts, if not all, tell us that sharpening is required after image capture. That includes scanning from film. Normally this is one of the first steps in post processing. A final sharpening at output sized is also recommended.

There are a lot of methods for sharpening at both stages. Do some research on the web for details and opinions. It's a complex subject that needs consideration based on ones personal tastes, experience and targeted output.

Don Bryant

Ray,

Most experts, if not all, tell us that sharpening is required after image capture. That includes scanning from film. Normally this is one of the first steps in post processing. A final sharpening at output sized is also recommended.

There are a lot of methods for sharpening at both stages. Do some research on the web for details and opinions. It's a complex subject that needs consideration based on ones personal tastes, experience and targeted output.

Don Bryant


yeh thanx for that Don, i know all that, i'm maybe not the one who needs to consider various options

the comments i made are after reading your post


As I said: you did not *read* my reply, you simply jumped to a number of conclusions.
*Nothing* in it compared film to digital, it's you who brought that up.
As for "options", perhaps if you research how long I've been actually using scanners it'd
then be clear to you I'm not exactly a beginner: been through a LOT of *options* and settled
on what works, not what "lots of folks talk about" or what some presumed "expert" web site
says. Simple as that and I won't engage in Usenet type trollish discussion over this:
it's clear above what I said, and what your conclusions were.
End of story

As I said: you did not *read* my reply, you simply jumped to a number of conclusions.
*Nothing* in it compared film to digital, it's you who brought that up.
As for "options", perhaps if you research how long I've been actually using scanners it'd
then be clear to you I'm not exactly a beginner: been through a LOT of *options* and settled
on what works, not what "lots of folks talk about" or what some presumed "expert" web site
says. Simple as that and I won't engage in Usenet type trollish discussion over this:
it's clear above what I said, and what your conclusions were.
End of story


whatever

USM applied in LAB to the L channel works well for me.

I've tried that technique before but I thought it only worked with colour.
Is it also applicable to b&w sharpening?

I'm going to try to get this thread back on track, if we could please end this ridiculous fighting. I messed around with photokit a little bit and really liked it buy my demo is over. I feel as if I could figure out how to make this workflow work for me. As it goes I'm still learning. I'll try the program you suggested, nsouto, but at the moment I'm dead broke, so I'm trying to learn other ways. Any else have any suggestions. Thanks,

John

but at the moment I'm dead broke, so I'm trying to learn other ways. Any else have any suggestions. Thanks,


John,

If that is the case take a look at Picture Cooler. The basic package is free and the full version is $20.

http://denoiser.shorturl.com/

It's a nice package, I've tried it and it is really pretty good although full disclosure here I use Noise Ninja Pro.

Try the download, what have you got to loose except a little time.

Don Bryant