Sharpening with D2X Images

[rhkdiver]

I have just returned from a month in Thailand on assignment for Fathoms Magazine. My work is primarily underwater images and I have been using a new D2X which I received just prior to leaving on the assignment.

After shooting close to 1000 images over the past month and processing several hundred of those, I am wondering if any of you out there using the D2X have found that the standard procedures for using PhotoKit Sharpener yield results in images that are over sharp.

Are there any changes in workflow that might now be recommended since the D2X appears to produce images that are quite sharp to begin with.

Please adivse.

Rod Klein
Digital Editor, Fathoms Magazine
www.fathomspub.com

[Bruce Fraser]

I haven't seen a D2X file yet....

If you wish, send an original raw and a converted but unsharpened TIFF to me at

bruce@pixelgenius.com

(this address can handle attachments of any size)

or make them available for me to download, and send me an email telling me where to grab them.

[rhkdiver]

Dear Bruce,

As per your request below, I have posted 1 D2X nef file and a16bit tif of the same image at the following link:

www.rhkuw.com/downloads/brucefraser Since the files are 20mb & 70mb respectively I thought posting them on my server would be best. Please advise when you have downloaded the files as I do have limited space and would like to remove them as soon as possible.

The tif file is a direct conversion from the nef file with no sharpening or color correction of any kind. I think there is a lot of interest with Photo Kit users as to how best to work with the D2X files, so hopefully you can get back to me and post your finders asap.

Thanks for your help.

[Sinklier]

I am just beginning to use the D2X and my Photokit Sharpener results look oversharpened to me also. My D1X results were very nice but I'm thinking that the D2X looks better unsharpened at this point.

[Bruce Fraser]

Is this based on looking at prints?

On the three D2X images I've seen this far, Digital High-Res seemed to work well with no modifications and nothing I'd call crunchy.

[Sinklier]

No, this is not based on looking at prints, in my case. I'm looking at a 23 inch Mac lcd monitor. I'm coming from a D1X and have only been shooting with the D2X for a couple of days. Perhaps I'm just not used to looking at sharp files until now.

[Bruce Fraser]

Please try at least a couple of prints before making the call. If you feel the prints are oversharpened, follow up with me and I'll investigate further, but based on what I've seen so far, I think you'll be surprised. If I'm wrong, please don't be shy about letting me know!

[Sinklier]

I'll do some test prints and see what things look like. Thanks for your comments.

[lonna.tucker]

I have a new D2X and recently shot somes tests with in camera sharpening turned off and on.
I have not ever used in camera sharpening, but read of others getting good results and thought I should do a test.

I applied PK Sharpener, Digital Hi-Res to all of the test images. I felt images looked noisy if in- camera sharpening had been applied (Normal setting) after PK Sharpener.

I thought D2X files unsharpened in camera, then PK Sharpener applied looked fantastic. By the way, all files tested were raw.

[thomaspetillo]

i have recently switched from the d1x to the d2x (sharpening is turned off in both cameras). i used capture sharpening and output sharpening on the d1x files out of necessity, and with great success. i have found that with the d2x files, capture sharpening produces what i will call noise and the images appear over-sharpened on my monitor. because of this, i have not been applying the capture sharpening to the d2x files. however, i haven't tested the output sharpening. my epson 2200 prints look great without any output sharpening. i am also curious as to what other d2x users are discovering.

[rhkdiver]

I started this original thread after feeling that my D2X images might be oversharpened with normal PSK workflow.

However, I viewed my original files on a new laptop with a very high resolution Crystal Scan TFT Monitor which i use on the road when on assignnment. I just competed a series of large prints on both Epson Prem Luster and Sommerset Velvet papers, printed on an Epson 7600.

When processing the files (converted from Raw to Tif in Nikon Cap 4) I purposely used less sharpening with PKS than I had with my D100 files. What I've discovered is that, even the the D2X images my look sharper on the computer, the art not oversharp when printed.

I actually went into my layered files and changed the sharpening parameters using the workflow I had developed for the D100 and found that gave me better results on the final print.

I also tried some of the strategies I found on some othe threads on this forum: I upsized some files to their maximum in the raw converter and printed them at either 180dpi or 240dpi without resampling them ( for 16x24 prints) and a slight upsample for 20x30 prints. This method gave good results.

[Bruce Fraser]

Rod,

That pretty much agrees with my experience?I've now seen some D2X files that weren't yours, and they all seem to respond well to sharpener.

I have seen some issues with files converted using RawShooterEssentials. By default it applies some fairly heavy sharpening which is controlled by more than one parameter. When those are brought under control, though, the D2X seems to work nicely with sharpener without having to tweak any masks or layer opacities.

[mike.mcfarlane]

Just to add my tuppence for anyone else who may be looking in future. I use the Nikon D2X for landscape photography and had seen the problems above - kinda noisy looking, very crunchy, even the prints looked a little crunchy on an Epson 2200 with archival matte. For a while I used the capture sharpener 6x6 positive film then maybe luminance sharpen 2. Really I should assess each image individually, but I like being outside or need to deal with business stuff, and I hate using the computer, so I do prefer a one size fits all solution. Lazy but true. The D2X is a funny beast to sharpen too compared to a D100. The first time I looked at a D2X print compared to a D100 print I thought the D100 was sharper! Odd, but I know a few others who had the same initial reaction. I guess I just wasn't used to how much more detail and tone the D2X captures.
Following Bruce's advice, I now use capture sharpen high res with light and dark contours at 50%, then edge sharpen 2 (normally) again with light and dark contours at 50%. Output sharpen as normal.
Looks good for me, your mileage may vary.

[Graham Checkley]

An interesting thread for someone like me, namely a new purchaser of PhotoKit Sharpener who has a D2X.

I currently apply Digital High Resolution Narrow Edge capture sharpening to my wildlife images and leave the opacities unchanged. I re-size my images for output sharpening, after making any changes needed in Photoshop Levels and Hue/Saturation, then apply the appropriate output filter. Again no opacity changes.

Results? Excellent prints, realy pleasing. As far as the Internet goes PKS seems to have a slightly firmer hand than me and my USM LAB sharpening. This may not be a bad thing...

Any other views on this?

Regards,
Graham.

[mike.mcfarlane]

Graham
Sounds like you got it dialed pretty quickly, the important thing IMHO is that you are happy with the results, especially a print.
The reason that I responded is that you appear to be making a point that you have not changed the opacities. I used to leave the opacities as they were and got a print so sharp looking that I could cut myself. Thinking about this one day after studying some large format film prints I realised the difference between sharp looking and sharp/detailed. As the months go by I drop the opacities further and further and sometimes a lower grade of sharpening filter e.g. edge 2 rather than 3, depending on the image. I prefer the less sharp looking result, it looks to my eye more natural. But it is personal taste.
(I also blend exposures and use DxO Optics Pro to reduce lens softness, both of which improve detail and tonality so my sharpening needs to be less anyway.)
Experiment and find what suits your eye, your clients eye and most importantly the story in your print.
Have fun.
Mike

[Graham Checkley]

Mike,

Many thanks for this, I think I still need to do a bit more experimenting. On which subject could I beg your indulgence further in asking you to give me a view on the following three images? They were all produced using no in camera sharpening, but employing PKS Narrow Edge Sharpening defaults.

http://www.pbase.com/grahamcheckley/image/67209734

http://www.pbase.com/grahamcheckley/image/67209794

http://www.pbase.com/grahamcheckley/image/66986899

Regards,
Graham.

[mike.mcfarlane]

Graham
I think they look great, very sharp. (For web use, I'm not sure how they will translate onto a print.)
The point I was trying to make was that experimentation is crucial to creating an expressive print. Whilst sharpness is only one factor in what your image will say about the fungi, it is a factor. For example, if you were creating prints for a book on fungi you might want them sharp as they can be to aid identification. At the opposite end if you were creating prints for a gallery, you may want the print to reflect the soft woodland light in which the fungi are found, then you may well want less sharpening.
I guess the question is, how did you previsualise the print looking?
Mike

[Graham Checkley]

Mike,

Thanks for your view on this. At present my work tends to be used for interpretation boards, species accounts and talks, and I'm still concentrating on getting the best sharpness etc out of my images. This is on the basis that once I've learnt the rules I can perhaps begin to break them....

Regards and thanks again,
Graham.