You're correct! The smaller the image the "less sharp" it needs to be. I think we have all chimped the back of the camera and that small screen deceived us once we put the image on the computer screen. Looking at a 4x6 photo is much different than a 16x20 photo so it pays to know how big of a photo a photographer will print the image. What is nice about having it in ON1 is that if need be later you can go back and use it on the raw image to sharpen it up if you want/need to. At this point using tack sharp as a layer like you did is IMO the best way to use it unless you want everything sharp. Maybe at some point they will put the ability to mask in/out the sharpness but masking as a layer seems to work well.
Vinny thanks for the comment and insight. I have personally chimped the back of the camera many times. Now that I shoot mirrorless, it is a little easier to get sharp images. But as I showed in this video, using a lens that is 150-600mm I miss focus. With that said, masking the layer is the official method that ON1 puts out. I was reviewing a few of the suggestions at the RAW Project and came across a denied project request to add masking to the NoNoise AI feature. Since Tack Sharp works in the same way as NoNoise, it is likely safe to assume that masking a layer is their method. It does work well, so maybe it's not so bad. As for large prints, I could see the need to look at the photo closer when applying the sharpening. The largest I print is 8x10 so viewing the image at "fit" works well most of the time.
@@FreeWillPhotos I haven't been following all the info on RAW 2023, just looking at bits and pieces from beta users like yourself; so now I know from you the official stance is to use layer masks for these. I didn't have a need for RAW 2022 but decided to update to 2023 to see all the AI stuff that they are presenting. The largest photo I have printed was the 16x20 (or 24 I forget 😊) but that was for a special purpose. Mostly 5x7s and 8x10s are the norm when I do print. Sharpening may be required if the viewing distance will be close but at 5 or 10 feet it probably doesn't matter. I have heard a lot of great things about mirrorless cameras with some of them having focus peaking; I'm still shooting with a DSLR and will be for quite a while. Is the lens soft at that focal length or are you manually focusing the lens and not hitting it? I'm asking because some DSLRs have a way of tweaking the focus if using auto focus, not sure if your mirrorless camera has that feature, I've always heard using the camera's sensor was the most accurate auto focus there was in the camera but they also can be a little off depending on the lens. BTW you put out some great content!
Hey Vinny Thank you for the comment and insight to your information.👍 Just so you aren't taking my word for it, here is the link to the thread where the request to add NoNoise as a filter was declined and the suggestion was made to use it as a layer. www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/ideas/idea/nonoise-as-a-filter/ This is a great place to check from time to time if you want to know what the team is cooking up for later releases and updates. I plan to make some content covering some of these feature requests in the future. As for printing, I have a 16x20 print that I made a few years back. The only reason I printed that large was to prove a point about large prints and cropping. I used a Nikon D5200 to capture the image and then cropped in about 45%. Through some post production editing I was able to make a photo that didn't look as if it were cropped so hard. I used the image a few times during photo lectures at a photography club as a demonstration of what we can do in post-production. It was a very extreme illustration, but also a very clear one. To your question about the sensor vs lens focusing, I would say I'm not sure which one is better. I think you need a good sensor to find the contrast between the subjects and background, but you need a good motor in the glass that can keep up with searching for the subject. In the case of my Tamron 150-600mm, I think the shutter speed is what caused the focus to miss. Looking at the exposure (600mm/ f/11, ISO 800, 1/500) my shutter speed was way too low. It should have been somewhere around 1250-2000 since that was double the focal length. The only reason I took the photo at this shutter speed was because I was on a tripod, the animal wasn't moving. I think I also had the IBIS on along with the lens stabilization, so that could have caused the blur. Now to be fair, I did get a few images in focus at these settings, so there were some keepers. Most of them were not though. I hope this answered the question about mirrorless focusing.
I think so too! This is one of the features that I think many people will enjoy once they find where it fits in their workflow. I also don't think everyone is going to need this tool, but I know in my world, I would likely need this.
Well, much depends on the lens quality and camera sensor resolution. Mirrorless cameras are best for focusing directly through the lens, rather than via a focus sensor on a mirrored plane. Based on your original image, sharpness is acceptable when not enlarged or cropped. On the other hand, many images become cropped in post, and for 40+ MP cameras, not a big problem. The problem is over-sharpening and creating artifacts that give the illusion of snappy sharpening when not required. Topaz Sharpen AI can function to correct minor motion blur, which is a big plus. (Interesting that PS once used it as a filter.) To vividly show the effects of sharpening, zoom in deeper than 100% using the zoom slider. Magnifying the image can show when much to too much.
With that thought, every program would be unnecessary and I'm not saying that's wrong. You are right, many times there is no need to make changes with increases greater than 100%. Sharpen and Denoising is only done when it is most needed. Especially for images that are published on the internet, a lower quality is the most common.
Thank you for the comment. I think we are approaching this from the same point of view. I think the Tack Sharp AI is a cool feature just from the point that many photographers will get more keeper images out of a shoot. I just wanted to bring things into perspective that not everyone is going to need this tool. This is also not for every image as some people may think. As for viewing it at 100%, I just never got that. I was judging the image at a view point that my intended audience was never going to view it. I think you can go too far with some editing tools, and sharpening is one of those tools. My other goal with this video and all of my other videos is to get people to think about what type of photo they are working on. Many of the tools in ON1 are designed for a specific set of images. The tools are great, but the results will vary based on the image and user.
@@FreeWillPhotos Right, and companies that want to sell their products try to drive us crazy with their AI, but it doesn't always make sense. Of course sometimes they help but that is not why they are going to do magic with the images. You are going the right way 👍
Thanks Rob! You are right companies will sell you on the new shiny thing that you may not even need. My hope and goal is to help people with being informed about making a decision for their workflow. I am looking forward to the release of ON1 2023, but I know just as you do not everyone is going to need the tools that are coming out in it.
Yea the best you will get to being able to brush it in, is by applying it to a second layer and then masking it in with a low opacity or flow. Not ideal, but it does give you some control over it.
I am just a beginner photographer, so maybe I don't get everything. You criticize the artifacts on the body in the beginning of the video. Maybe we are used to these kind of images now, but for me it just looks great. A lot sharper everywhere. Could you show in a bit more detail, what you mean by "artifacts"?
Yea you do have a point. After relooking the video, the artifacting that I was seeing on my screen did not show up completely on the YT Compressed version. When I talk about artificating, it looks like blocking spots on the image. It does not happen all the time, but when ON1 or any program tries to over sharpen an area that really dosent need it, we run into that issue. This photo also had a lot of micro contrast areas in the frame. This is why I wanted to show the masking option in ON1 just in case anyone experienced the same thing and decided to write of the tool all together. I will look into making a video explaining artifacts that come up while editing, thank you for the suggestion.
I purchased on1 2022.5. A few months later, seeing what they charge for an update that isn’t even out, I’ll pass on this on(e). There’s plenty good software less greedy around.
That is a fair view. I would ask you to consider the cost of photography equipment vs the software. As photographers we spend thousands of dollars on our cameras and lenses, which we only use as we need them. When it comes to software we expect it to be inexpensive but we Will process most of not all of our images in it. Just something to consider when it comes to pricing of software for any company. With that said I think it is reasonable not to upgrade if the features are not something that you plan to use, then the fee for the upgrade wouldn’t have the value you would expect it to.
I wondered how to "selective sharpen" here, Brilliant...
Wayne that is awesome! This is the reason I make content around ON1.
You're correct! The smaller the image the "less sharp" it needs to be. I think we have all chimped the back of the camera and that small screen deceived us once we put the image on the computer screen. Looking at a 4x6 photo is much different than a 16x20 photo so it pays to know how big of a photo a photographer will print the image. What is nice about having it in ON1 is that if need be later you can go back and use it on the raw image to sharpen it up if you want/need to.
At this point using tack sharp as a layer like you did is IMO the best way to use it unless you want everything sharp. Maybe at some point they will put the ability to mask in/out the sharpness but masking as a layer seems to work well.
Vinny thanks for the comment and insight. I have personally chimped the back of the camera many times. Now that I shoot mirrorless, it is a little easier to get sharp images. But as I showed in this video, using a lens that is 150-600mm I miss focus. With that said, masking the layer is the official method that ON1 puts out. I was reviewing a few of the suggestions at the RAW Project and came across a denied project request to add masking to the NoNoise AI feature. Since Tack Sharp works in the same way as NoNoise, it is likely safe to assume that masking a layer is their method. It does work well, so maybe it's not so bad. As for large prints, I could see the need to look at the photo closer when applying the sharpening. The largest I print is 8x10 so viewing the image at "fit" works well most of the time.
@@FreeWillPhotos I haven't been following all the info on RAW 2023, just looking at bits and pieces from beta users like yourself; so now I know from you the official stance is to use layer masks for these. I didn't have a need for RAW 2022 but decided to update to 2023 to see all the AI stuff that they are presenting.
The largest photo I have printed was the 16x20 (or 24 I forget 😊) but that was for a special purpose. Mostly 5x7s and 8x10s are the norm when I do print. Sharpening may be required if the viewing distance will be close but at 5 or 10 feet it probably doesn't matter.
I have heard a lot of great things about mirrorless cameras with some of them having focus peaking; I'm still shooting with a DSLR and will be for quite a while. Is the lens soft at that focal length or are you manually focusing the lens and not hitting it? I'm asking because some DSLRs have a way of tweaking the focus if using auto focus, not sure if your mirrorless camera has that feature, I've always heard using the camera's sensor was the most accurate auto focus there was in the camera but they also can be a little off depending on the lens.
BTW you put out some great content!
Hey Vinny Thank you for the comment and insight to your information.👍
Just so you aren't taking my word for it, here is the link to the thread where the request to add NoNoise as a filter was declined and the suggestion was made to use it as a layer. www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/ideas/idea/nonoise-as-a-filter/ This is a great place to check from time to time if you want to know what the team is cooking up for later releases and updates. I plan to make some content covering some of these feature requests in the future.
As for printing, I have a 16x20 print that I made a few years back. The only reason I printed that large was to prove a point about large prints and cropping. I used a Nikon D5200 to capture the image and then cropped in about 45%. Through some post production editing I was able to make a photo that didn't look as if it were cropped so hard. I used the image a few times during photo lectures at a photography club as a demonstration of what we can do in post-production. It was a very extreme illustration, but also a very clear one.
To your question about the sensor vs lens focusing, I would say I'm not sure which one is better. I think you need a good sensor to find the contrast between the subjects and background, but you need a good motor in the glass that can keep up with searching for the subject. In the case of my Tamron 150-600mm, I think the shutter speed is what caused the focus to miss. Looking at the exposure (600mm/ f/11, ISO 800, 1/500) my shutter speed was way too low. It should have been somewhere around 1250-2000 since that was double the focal length. The only reason I took the photo at this shutter speed was because I was on a tripod, the animal wasn't moving. I think I also had the IBIS on along with the lens stabilization, so that could have caused the blur. Now to be fair, I did get a few images in focus at these settings, so there were some keepers. Most of them were not though. I hope this answered the question about mirrorless focusing.
Thanks for the interesting video, I think this next release could be a very good one, lots of good new features coming.
I think so too! This is one of the features that I think many people will enjoy once they find where it fits in their workflow. I also don't think everyone is going to need this tool, but I know in my world, I would likely need this.
You make absolute sense!
Thank you!
Well, much depends on the lens quality and camera sensor resolution. Mirrorless cameras are best for focusing directly through the lens, rather than via a focus sensor on a mirrored plane. Based on your original image, sharpness is acceptable when not enlarged or cropped. On the other hand, many images become cropped in post, and for 40+ MP cameras, not a big problem. The problem is over-sharpening and creating artifacts that give the illusion of snappy sharpening when not required. Topaz Sharpen AI can function to correct minor motion blur, which is a big plus. (Interesting that PS once used it as a filter.) To vividly show the effects of sharpening, zoom in deeper than 100% using the zoom slider. Magnifying the image can show when much to too much.
Thanks for the great insight John! This feature does over sharpen and add artifacts but hopefully through the years it will improve
With that thought, every program would be unnecessary and I'm not saying that's wrong. You are right, many times there is no need to make changes with increases greater than 100%. Sharpen and Denoising is only done when it is most needed. Especially for images that are published on the internet, a lower quality is the most common.
Thank you for the comment. I think we are approaching this from the same point of view. I think the Tack Sharp AI is a cool feature just from the point that many photographers will get more keeper images out of a shoot. I just wanted to bring things into perspective that not everyone is going to need this tool. This is also not for every image as some people may think. As for viewing it at 100%, I just never got that. I was judging the image at a view point that my intended audience was never going to view it. I think you can go too far with some editing tools, and sharpening is one of those tools. My other goal with this video and all of my other videos is to get people to think about what type of photo they are working on. Many of the tools in ON1 are designed for a specific set of images. The tools are great, but the results will vary based on the image and user.
@@FreeWillPhotos Right, and companies that want to sell their products try to drive us crazy with their AI, but it doesn't always make sense. Of course sometimes they help but that is not why they are going to do magic with the images.
You are going the right way 👍
Thanks Rob! You are right companies will sell you on the new shiny thing that you may not even need. My hope and goal is to help people with being informed about making a decision for their workflow. I am looking forward to the release of ON1 2023, but I know just as you do not everyone is going to need the tools that are coming out in it.
I find it almost always over sharpens. I wish it had a brush and let me adjust the sharpening.
Yea the best you will get to being able to brush it in, is by applying it to a second layer and then masking it in with a low opacity or flow. Not ideal, but it does give you some control over it.
Looks like tack sharp ai is one more on1 feature which doesn't work on my laptop due to the fact my GPU is too old.
I'm sorry to hear that. Hopefully you can get a new GPU so you can use ON1.
I am just a beginner photographer, so maybe I don't get everything. You criticize the artifacts on the body in the beginning of the video. Maybe we are used to these kind of images now, but for me it just looks great. A lot sharper everywhere. Could you show in a bit more detail, what you mean by "artifacts"?
Yea you do have a point. After relooking the video, the artifacting that I was seeing on my screen did not show up completely on the YT Compressed version. When I talk about artificating, it looks like blocking spots on the image. It does not happen all the time, but when ON1 or any program tries to over sharpen an area that really dosent need it, we run into that issue. This photo also had a lot of micro contrast areas in the frame. This is why I wanted to show the masking option in ON1 just in case anyone experienced the same thing and decided to write of the tool all together. I will look into making a video explaining artifacts that come up while editing, thank you for the suggestion.
Your videos are TERRIFIC for this stuff!!! Hard to find good videos for ON1, other than you, and a few others. Thank you!
Glad you like them! I hope to keep bringing content that brings awareness to how to use this program.
I purchased on1 2022.5. A few months later, seeing what they charge for an update that isn’t even out, I’ll pass on this on(e). There’s plenty good software less greedy around.
That is a fair view. I would ask you to consider the cost of photography equipment vs the software. As photographers we spend thousands of dollars on our cameras and lenses, which we only use as we need them. When it comes to software we expect it to be inexpensive but we Will process most of not all of our images in it. Just something to consider when it comes to pricing of software for any company.
With that said I think it is reasonable not to upgrade if the features are not something that you plan to use, then the fee for the upgrade wouldn’t have the value you would expect it to.