I don't have a 5D2 (5D only) and know nothing of Aperture or Nik
Sharpener. However, as I consider your complaint I suspect that you are
confusing what is called by Bruce Fraser "capture sharpening" with
"output sharpening".
Capture sharpening is very subtle and can be performed on a raw file as
is done by Adobe Camera Raw. This level of sharpening is very subtle
and is to be performed at a minimum of 100% and perhaps as much as 400%
image size. While Fraser goes into some detailed objectives for this
level of sharpening its fundamental purpose is to zero in and first do
noise cleanup and sharpening at the pixel level in order to prepare the
image for the second stage of sharpening called "output sharpening".
This level of sharpening is *not visible* to the eye on a downsized
image for print. If you are only sharpening during the raw image
processing then I suspect your real problem is that you're only doing
capture sharpening and aren't doing any output sharpening at all.
As you have hinted, output sharpening is only to be done to a specific
image which has been cropped and sized and possibly resampled for a
specific print size. Only then is it ready to be output sharpened.
Fraser spends a large part of his book "Real World Image Sharpening with
Adobe PhotoShop X" (where X can be CS2 or CS3 since he died just before
CS3 was released) discussing how to do proper output sharpening but I
have summarized here before a simplified take on his procedure.
1) Crop and resize the image to final output pixel dimensions. For
example, an 8x10" print at 300 ppi should be 2400x3000 pixels.
2) Display the image on screen at roughly 25-35%. The reason for doing
this is to compensate for the large pixels on the screen relative to the
small dots in a print. His actual rule is to display according to a
percentage given by 100 x screen resolution / print resolution
So, for a typical screen resolving about 90 pixels per inch and for a
print at 300 pixels per inch we get 100 x 90 / 300 = 30%.
3) Finally, sharpen the image on screen until it looks just very
slightly "crunchy" or just slightly oversharpened. The reason for the
slight crunchiness is that the printing process will have a slight
softening effect. For ink jet printing its caused by the ink droplets
flowing and spreading a bit on impact. I don't know the physical
mechanism for chemical prints but it still seems to work the same way.
You need to very slightly oversharpen to compensate for printing. Works
for me!
Chuck Norcutt
SwissPace wrote:
> I have now reinstalled my computer equipment back into the office I
> share with my wife - we had to move out due of there to the house
> needing a total rewire and while they did that I got cat6 ethernet cable
> put in every room. anyway now I can print images again.
>
> I have been less than pleased with my results from the 5D2, its not that
> they are bad just not better than the E-3 which according to the web it
> should be clearly capable of delivering better images than I can coax
> out of it. So going back to basics please correct me if my reasoning or
> thoughts are wrong
>
> I shoot raw so the only variables I need to consider when taking the
> photo are aperture, shutter, iso and focus - I just need to watch the
> metering and focus and forget about all other functions.
>
> Once the raw file is copied to the computer the raw processing play a
> part so assuming the original file is good I should be able to produce a
> good print. Now with Aperture3 ( I will stay with this because the raw
> processing is good enough and the benefits of the catalog outweigh any
> minuses) and calibrated screens I see colours in the print that pretty
> much match the image on one screen, however the images just don't look
> as good printed and when I study the print very closely I see lots of
> what appears grain.
>
> When I say one screen, I have a dual display setup with a 24" for main
> display and a 20" 1600x1200 rotated for showing the image. On teh 24"
> dell the image is quite soft and unfortunately if I up teh sharpness
> settinbg on it it makes the text look horrible, a great screen for
> multimedia but not so good for photo's. The 20" displays the image nice
> and sharp.
>
> Last night I played with the nik sharpener pro 3.0 (demo ) plugin for
> aperture and it allows the sharpening to be done just before print (as
> you all advise) you tell it where to output it e.g display or print then
> if print what type of paper and then you have some sliders to play with
> to vary strength etc. The thing that puzzles me is that sharpening
> should be done at the output size and as I am working on the raw file I
> don't see where to tell the nik software I will print at A4 although I
> do tell it the resolution of the print eg 2880x1440. Is anyone else
> using this software
>
> Do I need to downsize before I sharpen, I found a nice review here
> <http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/plugins/sharpening_nik3.html#box_sharpening>
>
> but I am still at a loss. The reason I am posting is the hope that
> someone has some tips to save me wasting paper on test prints..
>
> This is sort of ON topic as I want to get the best from my OM glass and E-3
>
> Thanks IanW
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|