Is there a method to use Unsharp mask ?

[Olivier.A]

Hi,

The question may be very basic, but is there a method or way to use the Unsharp mask (live filter). I've search on the net and it seems that:

- you start by dragging the Factor slider to either half or full to the right, then

- you push up the Radius slider until you find it "to your taste", then

- slide down the Factor to better define the sharpness.

- Depending of the image (if noisy), you may use the Threshold slider to mitigate the effect and reduce the noise.

Is it a consensus of using this tools? Why would some use a 2 (half) factor, preferably of a 4 (full) ?

Any idea ? Thank you

[firstdefence]

To my eye it really is just a matter of taste, some would say that's overdone while others would say it's an acceptable level.

[NotMyFault]

It totally depends on

1. source document resolution (pixel count in x and y-axis)
2. File type (raw, jpeg already sharpened)
3. prior sharpening (some cameras do even in case or RAW)
4. type of document (digital camera, scan, self created, ...
5. the quality of the source image, in the sense of lack of sharpness
6. the intended target resolution
7. the intended device (or paper) used to view the image
8. and your taste (or the taste of viewers)

Besides unsharp mask, there are countless other methods to sharpen an image.

For digital images, i found radius of 1px and factor 0.5 suits my taste, more sharpness often increases noise.

If you export for Instagram, you may need much more aggressive settings, to make the images "pop" when viewed on Smartphone with high DPI "retina" displays.

Personally, i always exclude the Sky or other areas with smooth gradients of one or two colors, by masking, blend ranges, or other means.

If i try to do some "forensic" image development, i may need extreme sharpening settings, e.g. to make letters readable.

You method is absolutely OK if you (or your "customer") are happy with the results.

There is no such thing like consensus, especially when asking in a website discussing digital imaging 😁

 

[JohnZeman]

For years I have had excellent results following the guidelines in the following tutorial about using the unsharp filter in Photoshop, the procedure is essentially the same for Affinity Photo.

https://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-editing/how-to-sharpen-images-in-photoshop-with-unsharp-mask/

[Olivier.A]

On 12/12/2021 at 10:08 PM, NotMyFault said:

There is no such thing like consensus, especially when asking in a website discussing digital imaging 😁

I completely agreed with you on that ! (I'm a web dev).

There are many way to achieve the same result. Unsharp mask is only one tool. But I notice that for some tool, there are sometime a "good" way to use use (not saying that it must be used in a certain way). But learning a tool with some guidance help a lot

However, thank all of you for your advice

👌

[David in Яuislip]

4 hours ago, Olivier.A said:

(I'm a web dev).

If you are only concerned with sharpening images for the web then I would say don't bother. Serve a blunt image and let the browser do the sharpening ( SVG convolution matrix filter via CSS). Not advisable for fine art stuff but most images on the web are probably viewed for less than a second on a mobile, the filesizes will be smaller and the load time shortened

[Ron P.]

12 hours ago, David in Яuislip said:

images on the web are probably viewed for less than a second on a mobile

I agree, except if the image is really, really eye-catching. Then it will get a good solid 3 seconds. 😄 I say this, because I have a niece, that thinks she's a "pro" photographer. She has done business, with her friends mainly. She doesn't know what she's doing. Her images that she sells in digital only, for upload to social media. They are well not good, highlights blown out, over saturated, or no contrast at all. She thinks they're great, and her "clients" that she calls "her models" think they're great. They see them, share them, and they get maybe 10 secs of people's time. Then they're forgot about.

So don't sweat the sharpening.

[kaffeeundsalz]

@Ron P. This is probably the saddest story I've heard in a long time. 😢

[NotMyFault]

This isn’t sad. There are many different priorities and tastes. Even if 99% of images are consumed as throw-away commodity, the remaining 1% is enough room for people who prefers a high quality product, and enjoy the art, craftsmanship, and effort it takes to produce such results.

I was astounded to learn about users who manually edit several images per minute with Photo for their live, e.g. retailer product catalogues based on supplier images. Normally I would seek for a way to automate such tasks. 

[kaffeeundsalz]

6 hours ago, NotMyFault said:

This isn’t sad.

Running a crappy business being convinced that you are an expert when really you are not is what I'd consider a sad story. But I know this is probably an entirely subjective matter. For me personally, I really, really appreciate people who know what they're doing, and I find there are too many people out there who don't.

[Olivier.A]

On 12/14/2021 at 8:55 PM, David in Яuislip said:

If you are only concerned with sharpening images for the web then I would say don't bother.

I understand what you mean. Doing a lot of image for the web, sharpening has no real value here. I also shoot photo and try to develop them with the best qualityI can. For this I try to learn and better understand tools so I can use them at best.

Sadly a lot of people are "just" attracted to shiny shiny throwable images  and I had some contacts wanting just that.

 

[Catshill]

On 12/15/2021 at 10:59 AM, kaffeeundsalz said:

Running a crappy business being convinced that you are an expert when really you are not is what I'd consider a sad story. But I know this is probably an entirely subjective matter. For me personally, I really, really appreciate people who know what they're doing, and I find there are too many people out there who don't.

 I am not sure what is meant by a crappy business. 

I personally admire anyone who is prepared to learn and/or is willing to share their expertise with others.

In my experience many successful businesses were started by people who didn’t have a clue what they were doing initially but learnt from others.

 

[PaulEC]

44 minutes ago, Catshill said:

 I am not sure what is meant by a crappy business. 

The problem is the people who start up a business, without really knowing anything about what they are doing, and charge unsuspecting customers for doing something or providing a service or product! 

For example: Say a couple want wedding pictures taken, they see an advert that looks good, they pay the photographer a large fee and the pictures turn out to be awful. It then transpires that the photographer has never taken wedding pictures before, hardly knows how to use a camera, and used stock photos in his advert.

Or, how about the guy who advertised as a web designer, then, once he was approached by a prospective client, posted in the forum for the software he was using, asking how to build a website, and how much he should charge for it.

I certainly would not admire someone who started a business, without knowing what they were doing, and expected other people to pay for them to learn! I would say they both were running a crappy business!

[Fixx]

There are also people whose output looks awful by some professional standards but whose clientele actually prefers that look and quality. There demand and supply meet nicely and professionals are out.