Thank you Alex a really excellent and helpful video. The ethos around the Natural Landscape Photography award is to be applauded....many thanks for promoting it.
Yeah genuinely excited about it. As I said we basically created the competition we wanted to enter ourselves. I’ve also built a lot of connections with incredible photographers over the years so it’s put me in the position to make it happen!
Been using your Actions for some time now Alex and find them excellent, the Natural Landscape awards sound like a brilliant idea, very welcome in our over-processed Photography world.
I love the idea of a natural landscape photography contest. Your panelists are some of those artists whose work I admire and who also ascribe to the ideals you are promoting in this channel. I expect it will be very successful.
Thanks David. We actually think it will be very successful too. There are an enormous number of photographers who seem to have similar thoughts on this sort of thing and we were lucky to have our first choice of judges too. So it’s quite an exciting project at a time where there isn’t much in the way of excitement!
Many thanks, Alex, for taking the time to make & share your most recent tutorials. They are exceptionally helpful & a positive consequence of C-19! I'm also very happy that you & fellow, like-minded landscape photographers are taking the lead promoting a more authentic style of landscape photography. Good luck with the competition. It is exceptionally well timed & relevant.
Many thanks Alex. Very fast response to people's suggestions! Great idea for Natural Landscape Award. Especially like the category for intimate landscapes.
This series of editing videos is so good Alex. You could make an incredible paid for editing series (but am v grateful for you having put all this up for us to view for free!)
Thanks Sean - I will probably put out a paid for course at some point. There are still lots of ideas on the ‘understanding’ side that I would like to introduce
Wow...just found your page. Going to be spending a lot of time here I can tell! Great explanations really helpful. I would love to see a video where you show the print sharpening side. I know it’s complex. It could even be something where you show 4-5 images you have already sharpened and just talk about what you applied and where. Print sharpening seems to be the last thing people really want to talk about on UA-cam lol! But for someone like me trying to get to the point where I can make solid prints from outside sources because I don’t have a printer, this is really important to understand. Thanks again, great resources!
Hello Alex. I found your channel on accident. Instant subscription. Really helpful content. Your tips on white balance already helped me a ton. I have been photographing for about 18 months and over the last few months totally lost my path in editing the photos. As you know there are tons of different ways out there. As a beginner you try them all and at the end you don't have a clue what's helpful in a certain situation. Your down to earth and basic way on editing in LR brought me back on track. Keep on going, you fit in nicely into the army of British landscape photographers on UA-cam. Growth will come! Regards from Germany.
Thanks Benedikt. There's a bit of a problem with photographic teaching and learning. The teachers often promote techniques that are useful for advanced photographers but complex for beginners/intermediates. Unfortunately a lot of beginners/intermediates enjoy those videos and seeing the usefulness of the technique without first learning the 'boring' basics. There was a photographer teaching a technique a while back whose UA-cam video exploded. It was a workable technique but with no benefits over much simpler techniques and a lot of downsides. Unfortunately anyone who knew that couldnt say anything because it would be professional suicide. That's one of many examples! Equally I'm boring old Alex using the same boring process with BASIC tools all the time. It's not great from a branding perspective!
Hi Alex you have created a superb set of UA-cam videos a valuable resource for all levels of photographers. Thanks for all the time and effort you have put into these. I also really like the Natural Landscape awards a great idea. I love printing so sharpening is an important topic. Do you focus stack much or blend sky’s from different exposures, if so maybe a video on these areas.
I occasionally focus stack yes, although I’d rather illustrate that when I can get out in the field again, it’s actually quite an interesting subject. As for blending in skies. I shoot exposure brackets and usually create an HDR dng and go from there. It’s actually been a long time since I have had to blend exposures manually, but certainly a specific video covering both approaches would be good :)
Thanks very much for your thoughts on this Alex. A lot of people seem to think sharpening is something that's not really necessary with the output from modern high pixel count cameras - I'm talking 25MP plus. I'm not so sure myself. Yes, a good lens and a good sensor will do a lot of the heavy lifting but as far as I can make out you still are left with the inherent softening that happens with RAW capture. And thanks for the actions too!
Well there is an element of truth there. If you have a good printer and you’re printing file at it’s native size at 300 pixels per inch the print will ALWAYS look good. It just won’t look it’s best because with effective sharpening you can make detail more apparent without introducing artefacts. I have personally seen many prints however where the sharpening was done poorly and in those circumstances a slightly soft image would have been much better!
Excellent video Alex. Thanks for doing this. I'll definitely have a look at your Photoshop action. Great news about the new competition too - agree with your thinking 100%.
Hi Alex, Another excellent video, and the news that you've developed the concept of a competition which focusses on a Photographer's ability - rather than their I.T skills(!), is amazing. At last, a true test. The news is also very timely because just this week I received a promotional email from another well known photography competition which is now offering a LR landscape photography post processing course. Curious, I clicked the link to see a sample image that I can only describe as 'otherworldly'. I genuinely left the site feeling quite depressed, wondering whether it was an example of how not to process an image or whether it was actually considered to be the finished article. Keep up the good work. Your images and videos are inspirational, and I'm greatly looking forward to your competition. Nigel
@@alexnail Hi Alex, One quick question that I meant to add. As you per your video I have always saved separately any PS edits to a LR import, thereby enabling me to return to the original image (by deleting the LR history) or rework it should I subsequently discover a new technique (usually courtesy of your videos!). However, I save these as TIFF files. You mentioned that you save yours as PSD's. Are there any advantage/ disadvantages associated each?
Thanks for this tutorial very informative, one or two things I'll try. I have never used Lr always Raw Therapee as a RAW editor it lets you chose your demosaicing method. As well as that it has separate capture sharpening, I then move to PS as you have done.
Very helpful Alex. Based on advice I've come across elsewhere, I have been reducing the default sharpening Lightroom applies (to 10-20), masking it to reduce sharpening in the sky etc, reducing radius to 0.5 and pushing detail to 100. My understanding of the rationale for this was focusing on fine details and baking less sharpening into the raw file to reduce the risk if artifacts when editing in Photoshop (on the assumption most of the sharpening to be applied would be done at output stage). I've then been using your action for web images and anything I've printed (not much yet) - or just for the satisfaction of enjoying scanning around the fine details of a high res file - I've applied a fair bit of sharpening (around 250-450%) using Smart Sharpen with a low radius (usually 0.5). I'd be interested in your print sharpening workflow and also generally what you would recommend for getting the most out of fine details in any image (even if just for the satisfaction of knowing they're the best they can be in a full resolution file and, I suppose, as something to use as a standard for comparing with prints). Printing is something I'd like to understand and do more in the future.
Hi Brian, ultimately many of these choices are highly subjective and I couldn't call your approach wrong on any level but here are my thoughts: Masking to reduce sharpening (of noise) in the sky may also reduce the sharpening of subtle details. If it ISNT doing that then the noise levels would be so low as to be unnoticeably anyway unless you made rather massive contrast adjustments. The sharpening settings you use also work well, I have just tried them, and certainly at the low amount, you couldn't possibly create problems. However the difference between this method (as I commented to Vangelis) is pretty negligible, I just tried with a few images and honestly couldn't see a difference (that couldn't be changed by the 'amount slider). So your method is totally equivalent and much like mine, shouldn't introduce any problems whilst returning the image to a decent degree of sharpness. I might do a print specific sharpening video in the future but I think for most people that would be less interesting than other topics. I take a very pragmatic view on print sharpening. Despite using a very simple method (sometimes two passes of sharpening for different areas combined with masks) I have been producing prints that are exactly how I want them to look, but I can also do trial prints at home and that has enormous benefits.
@@alexnail thanks Alex. Likewise, I tried not touching the lightroom defaults and going though my usual process in Photoshop and couldn't tell the difference. Always good to sense check this stuff though. Some ideas for some topics (if you're looking) might b be: an in depth on the curves tool with examples of techniques for using it to achieve specific outcomes; an in depth on understanding colour relationships and consequences (perhaps with some examples of using the curves / hsl tools to tweak colour); processing low contrast images; your 'checklist' for assessing/ critiquing you own images and perhaps some examples successful v unsuccessful images and why they work / don't; maybe something on where you draw inspiration (i.e. other photographers that inspire you and what you like about their work/ how it may have influenced your work).
@@brianp1888 thanks Brian, I actually have most of those written down already (although I think the importance colour relationships is somewhat overstated as far as landscape photography goes - they are what they are and you can only decide if you like them or not. It’s interesting background though) A critiquing checklist is an interesting idea as a tool for beginners. I actually don’t work that way at all, I just see/feel things more or less instantly now, which is why I occasionally miss thing like wonky horizons because I’m not actually checking for anything at all! But until you are looking at as many photos as I do it’s a hard thing to develop I guess!
Thanks for this Alex, I would love a similar video for noise reduction for both handheld shots with higher ISO, and low noise tripod based shots. I tend to just leave it on the default in lightroom (0 luminace and 25 colour) but would like to know what you do!
Hi Jose, to be honest that’s not a bad approach to take. Noise reduction always reduces details (although modern AI based methods reduce the detail less). My personal preference is to have noise that looks natural over plasticy textures and blurred colours, but I think a video on that topic is a good idea!
Hi Alex I really enjoy your videos they are very informative and very helpful, I do most of my editing in Lightroom and I’m in the process of getting to grips with Photoshop. I would be extremely keen to understand in your editing what you do in Lightroom and why and what you would typically finish off in photoshop. The photography competition sounds great.
I tried this method but in all honesty I find the results to be somewhat similar to using low details. I suspect if you were really particular about the rendering of certain details then it may have an advantage though, so thanks for bringing it up.
I just made a few comparisons between the details on 100 and on the default. I tried on a few images and looked at both richly detailed high contrast edges and noise in flat areas. Quite honestly I could see no practical difference at all, which both methods looking fractionally better/worse than the other in different areas. In a print it would be totally impossible to tell the difference I think!
Hello. Alex: I noticed that you flattened your example (psd file) before sharpening and, presumably, printing. After printing, do you then revert to the pre-flattened state before saving the psd file to preserve the layers you created for future edits? (Also, what are the benefits of saving your work as psd files instead of tif files?) Thank you very much for your work, Alex.
Tiff is actually the better format to use, but there is minimal difference and I started with PSD so I have stuck with it! Yes I should have clarified that the ‘master’ never has sharpening applied and in general I don’t even save the sharpened print version because I will revisit the sharpening process every time I print
I've been using your sharpening action for years but I'm unaware exactly what it does. I'm curious, is sharpening applied to the image before it's down sized? If so I'm assuming that the sharpening is better for having been applied to the full res' before downscaling. If this is true then would the same thing apply to sharpening for print i.e would it be best to upsize an image well beyond its native print size, then sharpen, then downscale it back to its intended print size? Imagine the scenario when someone decides to print 5 images all at varying sizes. You would assume that they are unlikely to sharpen for each individual size. So maybe they decide to make one 70" print which is somewhat bigger than the native image file. They might work on this image first, upsizing it to 70" then sharpen. Then simply downscale for the other smaller print sizes and I assume not change the sharpening protocol. Many thanks and yes I too agree a competition for authentic photography is very much needed.
The action sharpens at 1.66x whatever the final image dimensions are. So for example if you are outputting at 1200px wide the action downsizes first to 2000px then sharpens then downsizes again to 1200px. The reason for this is largely a legacy one - the old photoshop downsized using the bicubic method and this is not a particularly 'sharp' downsizing method. by sharpening first you could retain certain details that would otherwise be lost. However several years ago now "bicubic sharper" was introduced and this is automatically chosen as the algorithm when you downsize in Photoshop. To a large degree this negates the need for the action, an appropriate downsize combined with smart sharpening would likely produce equal results. But at least for me the action is fast, easy and easily modifiable, with no real downside, so I continue to use it. This method would not be an appropriate print sharpening method because no "extra details" would be retained since you would be stretching the data in the upsize step. For print sharpening I recommend developing your own preferences for the amount and radius necessary to achieve beautifully detailed prints at a range of sizes.
@@alexnail Thank you for replying Alex. The subject of upsizing a print, then downscaling is one I discussed with Alex N. He said you'd be the best person to talk to about it.
@@And-rc9yy The crux of it really is that when you are sharpening for print fine details (on a miniscule pixel level) would just be lost unless you printed those pixels big enough to see them, which obviously would result in a worse print. In general you want the image PPI to be near or higher than the printer DPI (usually about 600). At 600PPI you just cant see the finest details and you need to oversharpen to a certain degree to make those details come through. It's kind of hard to explain to be honest!
Thank you Alex a really excellent and helpful video. The ethos around the Natural Landscape Photography award is to be applauded....many thanks for promoting it.
Yeah genuinely excited about it. As I said we basically created the competition we wanted to enter ourselves. I’ve also built a lot of connections with incredible photographers over the years so it’s put me in the position to make it happen!
Been using your Actions for some time now Alex and find them excellent, the Natural Landscape awards sound like a brilliant idea, very welcome in our over-processed Photography world.
Excellent. Its crazy how many people do use them! The reception for the awards has already been awesome. We're really excited about it.
I love the idea of a natural landscape photography contest. Your panelists are some of those artists whose work I admire and who also ascribe to the ideals you are promoting in this channel. I expect it will be very successful.
Thanks David. We actually think it will be very successful too. There are an enormous number of photographers who seem to have similar thoughts on this sort of thing and we were lucky to have our first choice of judges too. So it’s quite an exciting project at a time where there isn’t much in the way of excitement!
Just an ad for the photo comp. Looks really cool. Congrats on making that happen!
Many thanks, Alex, for taking the time to make & share your most recent tutorials. They are exceptionally helpful & a positive consequence of C-19! I'm also very happy that you & fellow, like-minded landscape photographers are taking the lead promoting a more authentic style of landscape photography. Good luck with the competition. It is exceptionally well timed & relevant.
Thanks very much Rob, yes not many positive consequences but I guess this is one!
Many thanks Alex. Very fast response to people's suggestions! Great idea for Natural Landscape Award. Especially like the category for intimate landscapes.
Ha yeah I'm trying to be speedy so people feel they can engage and learn the things they want to learn! Glad you are liking the look of the awards!
Excellent video on a complex topic. Was hoping you would do a sharpening video... especially sharpening for prints. Thanks.
Yeah I might do another video on sharpening for print, but it is a big topic!
This series of editing videos is so good Alex. You could make an incredible paid for editing series (but am v grateful for you having put all this up for us to view for free!)
Thanks Sean - I will probably put out a paid for course at some point. There are still lots of ideas on the ‘understanding’ side that I would like to introduce
Sounds great - count me in as a customer!
This has been immensely helpful,. Thank you very much for this, Alex. Once I fathom how to install your custom action I'll be sure to use it.
I suspect all you have to do is open it in Photoshop!
Just brilliant Alex - very many thanks
Thanks David. Hope things are well Down Under!
Wow...just found your page. Going to be spending a lot of time here I can tell! Great explanations really helpful. I would love to see a video where you show the print sharpening side. I know it’s complex. It could even be something where you show 4-5 images you have already sharpened and just talk about what you applied and where. Print sharpening seems to be the last thing people really want to talk about on UA-cam lol! But for someone like me trying to get to the point where I can make solid prints from outside sources because I don’t have a printer, this is really important to understand.
Thanks again, great resources!
I posted a video on just that last week! Glad you’re enjoying the videos!
Hello Alex. I found your channel on accident. Instant subscription. Really helpful content.
Your tips on white balance already helped me a ton. I have been photographing for about 18 months and over the last few months totally lost my path in editing the photos.
As you know there are tons of different ways out there. As a beginner you try them all and at the end you don't have a clue what's helpful in a certain situation.
Your down to earth and basic way on editing in LR brought me back on track.
Keep on going, you fit in nicely into the army of British landscape photographers on UA-cam.
Growth will come!
Regards from Germany.
Thanks Benedikt. There's a bit of a problem with photographic teaching and learning. The teachers often promote techniques that are useful for advanced photographers but complex for beginners/intermediates. Unfortunately a lot of beginners/intermediates enjoy those videos and seeing the usefulness of the technique without first learning the 'boring' basics. There was a photographer teaching a technique a while back whose UA-cam video exploded. It was a workable technique but with no benefits over much simpler techniques and a lot of downsides. Unfortunately anyone who knew that couldnt say anything because it would be professional suicide. That's one of many examples! Equally I'm boring old Alex using the same boring process with BASIC tools all the time. It's not great from a branding perspective!
@@alexnail I understand what you mean. Thanks for the comment and being down to earth. Have a great weekend.
Hi Alex you have created a superb set of UA-cam videos a valuable resource for all levels of photographers. Thanks for all the time and effort you have put into these. I also really like the Natural Landscape awards a great idea. I love printing so sharpening is an important topic. Do you focus stack much or blend sky’s from different exposures, if so maybe a video on these areas.
I occasionally focus stack yes, although I’d rather illustrate that when I can get out in the field again, it’s actually quite an interesting subject.
As for blending in skies. I shoot exposure brackets and usually create an HDR dng and go from there. It’s actually been a long time since I have had to blend exposures manually, but certainly a specific video covering both approaches would be good :)
As always Alex, very helpful and I picked up a couple of things to implement into my own workflow. :-)
Awesome, glad to hear it Julian!
Thanks very much for your thoughts on this Alex. A lot of people seem to think sharpening is something that's not really necessary with the output from modern high pixel count cameras - I'm talking 25MP plus. I'm not so sure myself. Yes, a good lens and a good sensor will do a lot of the heavy lifting but as far as I can make out you still are left with the inherent softening that happens with RAW capture. And thanks for the actions too!
Well there is an element of truth there. If you have a good printer and you’re printing file at it’s native size at 300 pixels per inch the print will ALWAYS look good. It just won’t look it’s best because with effective sharpening you can make detail more apparent without introducing artefacts. I have personally seen many prints however where the sharpening was done poorly and in those circumstances a slightly soft image would have been much better!
@@alexnail Ah - I wasn't as clear as I should have been there Alex. I was actually pondering about capture sharpening rather than output.
Excellent video Alex. Thanks for doing this. I'll definitely have a look at your Photoshop action. Great news about the new competition too - agree with your thinking 100%.
That’s great to hear Steve!
Incredibly helpful. Thanks very much Alex.
That’s my pleasure Bill, thanks for commenting
Hi Alex, Another excellent video, and the news that you've developed the concept of a competition which focusses on a Photographer's ability - rather than their I.T skills(!), is amazing. At last, a true test. The news is also very timely because just this week I received a promotional email from another well known photography competition which is now offering a LR landscape photography post processing course. Curious, I clicked the link to see a sample image that I can only describe as 'otherworldly'. I genuinely left the site feeling quite depressed, wondering whether it was an example of how not to process an image or whether it was actually considered to be the finished article.
Keep up the good work. Your images and videos are inspirational, and I'm greatly looking forward to your competition. Nigel
Glad you’re excited for the competition Nigel. The response has been great!
Also happy that you’re continuing to enjoy the videos!
@@alexnail Hi Alex, One quick question that I meant to add. As you per your video I have always saved separately any PS edits to a LR import, thereby enabling me to return to the original image (by deleting the LR history) or rework it should I subsequently discover a new technique (usually courtesy of your videos!). However, I save these as TIFF files. You mentioned that you save yours as PSD's. Are there any advantage/ disadvantages associated each?
@@NigelDownes-fi2pk I believe that the two are essentially identical and the main difference is Tiff files can be larger than 2GB whereas PSDs cannot!
Recommended to your channel by Dave Morrow. Really found you videos extremely interesting and helpful. Binge watching underway!
Awesome - it was really kind of Dave to mention me!
Great video. Thanks for sharing the actions. Very useful 😁
My pleasure Andrew
Thanks for this tutorial very informative, one or two things I'll try. I have never used Lr always Raw Therapee as a RAW editor it lets you chose your demosaicing method. As well as that it has separate capture sharpening, I then move to PS as you have done.
I haven’t tried RAW Therapee but I’m glad you have a method you are happy with!
Very helpful Alex. Based on advice I've come across elsewhere, I have been reducing the default sharpening Lightroom applies (to 10-20), masking it to reduce sharpening in the sky etc, reducing radius to 0.5 and pushing detail to 100. My understanding of the rationale for this was focusing on fine details and baking less sharpening into the raw file to reduce the risk if artifacts when editing in Photoshop (on the assumption most of the sharpening to be applied would be done at output stage). I've then been using your action for web images and anything I've printed (not much yet) - or just for the satisfaction of enjoying scanning around the fine details of a high res file - I've applied a fair bit of sharpening (around 250-450%) using Smart Sharpen with a low radius (usually 0.5). I'd be interested in your print sharpening workflow and also generally what you would recommend for getting the most out of fine details in any image (even if just for the satisfaction of knowing they're the best they can be in a full resolution file and, I suppose, as something to use as a standard for comparing with prints). Printing is something I'd like to understand and do more in the future.
Hi Brian, ultimately many of these choices are highly subjective and I couldn't call your approach wrong on any level but here are my thoughts:
Masking to reduce sharpening (of noise) in the sky may also reduce the sharpening of subtle details. If it ISNT doing that then the noise levels would be so low as to be unnoticeably anyway unless you made rather massive contrast adjustments.
The sharpening settings you use also work well, I have just tried them, and certainly at the low amount, you couldn't possibly create problems. However the difference between this method (as I commented to Vangelis) is pretty negligible, I just tried with a few images and honestly couldn't see a difference (that couldn't be changed by the 'amount slider). So your method is totally equivalent and much like mine, shouldn't introduce any problems whilst returning the image to a decent degree of sharpness.
I might do a print specific sharpening video in the future but I think for most people that would be less interesting than other topics. I take a very pragmatic view on print sharpening. Despite using a very simple method (sometimes two passes of sharpening for different areas combined with masks) I have been producing prints that are exactly how I want them to look, but I can also do trial prints at home and that has enormous benefits.
@@alexnail thanks Alex. Likewise, I tried not touching the lightroom defaults and going though my usual process in Photoshop and couldn't tell the difference. Always good to sense check this stuff though.
Some ideas for some topics (if you're looking) might b be: an in depth on the curves tool with examples of techniques for using it to achieve specific outcomes; an in depth on understanding colour relationships and consequences (perhaps with some examples of using the curves / hsl tools to tweak colour); processing low contrast images; your 'checklist' for assessing/ critiquing you own images and perhaps some examples successful v unsuccessful images and why they work / don't; maybe something on where you draw inspiration (i.e. other photographers that inspire you and what you like about their work/ how it may have influenced your work).
@@brianp1888 thanks Brian, I actually have most of those written down already (although I think the importance colour relationships is somewhat overstated as far as landscape photography goes - they are what they are and you can only decide if you like them or not. It’s interesting background though)
A critiquing checklist is an interesting idea as a tool for beginners. I actually don’t work that way at all, I just see/feel things more or less instantly now, which is why I occasionally miss thing like wonky horizons because I’m not actually checking for anything at all! But until you are looking at as many photos as I do it’s a hard thing to develop I guess!
Thanks for this Alex, I would love a similar video for noise reduction for both handheld shots with higher ISO, and low noise tripod based shots. I tend to just leave it on the default in lightroom (0 luminace and 25 colour) but would like to know what you do!
Hi Jose, to be honest that’s not a bad approach to take. Noise reduction always reduces details (although modern AI based methods reduce the detail less). My personal preference is to have noise that looks natural over plasticy textures and blurred colours, but I think a video on that topic is a good idea!
Hi Alex I really enjoy your videos they are very informative and very helpful, I do most of my editing in Lightroom and I’m in the process of getting to grips with Photoshop. I would be extremely keen to understand in your editing what you do in Lightroom and why and what you would typically finish off in photoshop. The photography competition sounds great.
Thanks Philip, glad you’re enjoying them.
That’s actually a really good topic for a video so I will write it down!
I use the details slide always on 100.
They call this method deconvolution sharpening.
I tried this method but in all honesty I find the results to be somewhat similar to using low details. I suspect if you were really particular about the rendering of certain details then it may have an advantage though, so thanks for bringing it up.
I just made a few comparisons between the details on 100 and on the default. I tried on a few images and looked at both richly detailed high contrast edges and noise in flat areas. Quite honestly I could see no practical difference at all, which both methods looking fractionally better/worse than the other in different areas. In a print it would be totally impossible to tell the difference I think!
Hello. Alex: I noticed that you flattened your example (psd file) before sharpening and, presumably, printing. After printing, do you then revert to the pre-flattened state before saving the psd file to preserve the layers you created for future edits? (Also, what are the benefits of saving your work as psd files instead of tif files?) Thank you very much for your work, Alex.
Tiff is actually the better format to use, but there is minimal difference and I started with PSD so I have stuck with it!
Yes I should have clarified that the ‘master’ never has sharpening applied and in general I don’t even save the sharpened print version because I will revisit the sharpening process every time I print
As usual, an excellent discussion. Where to look for your sharpening actions?
Thanks, there is a link to the action in the video description
I've been using your sharpening action for years but I'm unaware exactly what it does. I'm curious, is sharpening applied to the image before it's down sized? If so I'm assuming that the sharpening is better for having been applied to the full res' before downscaling. If this is true then would the same thing apply to sharpening for print i.e would it be best to upsize an image well beyond its native print size, then sharpen, then downscale it back to its intended print size? Imagine the scenario when someone decides to print 5 images all at varying sizes. You would assume that they are unlikely to sharpen for each individual size. So maybe they decide to make one 70" print which is somewhat bigger than the native image file. They might work on this image first, upsizing it to 70" then sharpen. Then simply downscale for the other smaller print sizes and I assume not change the sharpening protocol. Many thanks and yes I too agree a competition for authentic photography is very much needed.
The action sharpens at 1.66x whatever the final image dimensions are. So for example if you are outputting at 1200px wide the action downsizes first to 2000px then sharpens then downsizes again to 1200px. The reason for this is largely a legacy one - the old photoshop downsized using the bicubic method and this is not a particularly 'sharp' downsizing method. by sharpening first you could retain certain details that would otherwise be lost.
However several years ago now "bicubic sharper" was introduced and this is automatically chosen as the algorithm when you downsize in Photoshop. To a large degree this negates the need for the action, an appropriate downsize combined with smart sharpening would likely produce equal results. But at least for me the action is fast, easy and easily modifiable, with no real downside, so I continue to use it.
This method would not be an appropriate print sharpening method because no "extra details" would be retained since you would be stretching the data in the upsize step. For print sharpening I recommend developing your own preferences for the amount and radius necessary to achieve beautifully detailed prints at a range of sizes.
@@alexnail Thank you for replying Alex. The subject of upsizing a print, then downscaling is one I discussed with Alex N. He said you'd be the best person to talk to about it.
@@And-rc9yy The crux of it really is that when you are sharpening for print fine details (on a miniscule pixel level) would just be lost unless you printed those pixels big enough to see them, which obviously would result in a worse print. In general you want the image PPI to be near or higher than the printer DPI (usually about 600). At 600PPI you just cant see the finest details and you need to oversharpen to a certain degree to make those details come through. It's kind of hard to explain to be honest!