Old mill

[DanK]

Enough there there?

[rpcrowe]

Great shot Dan...

[Manfred M]

Very strong image Dan.

I like these images that explore the details of old structures where the photographer has moved in tight to create a strong, compelling image. Too often we see someone take a shot of an old structure and if one looks at it objectively, there are several images to be pulled out.

[ST1]

Well seen Dan, I love the lichen on the timber and your choice of composition


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shadowman]

Nicely captured.

[MrB]

A great shot - wonderful tones and textures in the old wood, and good to see some of the scene beyond each window frame.

Philip

[DanK]

Thanks, all. This is a genre that I am finding increasingly interesting. It shares a fundamental characteristics with macro: looking more closely to find fine details that one often doesn't see when looking at the larger whole.

These require a somewhat unnatural processing, with a substantial boost in vibrance to bring out things like moss and lichen and a very large increase in local contrast to bring out textures. I've experimented with a bunch of tools for the latter but haven't yet fully sorted them out because the vendors provide so little information about them. Within the Adobe realm, there are three tools for this: texture and clarity in LR/ACR and USM with a very large radius in Photoshop. I usually start by using both of the LR tools. I've also experimented with Nik for this, but I haven't yet done a side-by-side comparison. I also haven't yet tried altering the frequency of the local contrast adjustment in USM (which would be controlled by the radius).

[Manfred M]

Thanks, all. This is a genre that I am finding increasingly interesting. It shares a fundamental characteristics with macro: looking more closely to find fine details that one often doesn't see when looking at the larger whole.

These require a somewhat unnatural processing, with a substantial boost in vibrance to bring out things like moss and lichen and a very large increase in local contrast to bring out textures. I've experimented with a bunch of tools for the latter but haven't yet fully sorted them out because the vendors provide so little information about them. Within the Adobe realm, there are three tools for this: texture and clarity in LR/ACR and USM with a very large radius in Photoshop. I usually start by using both of the LR tools. I've also experimented with Nik for this, but I haven't yet done a side-by-side comparison. I also haven't yet tried altering the frequency of the local contrast adjustment in USM (which would be controlled by the radius).

Interesting insight to your process Dan; most of the techniques you describe are generally working on the micro-contrast of the image and given that you are trying to enhance some fairly subtle elements in the image, this makes a lot of sense. The USM technique you describe bears a lot of resemblance to using the LR clarity slider, as I recall.

[xpatUSA]

Thanks, all. This is a genre that I am finding increasingly interesting. It shares a fundamental characteristics with macro: looking more closely to find fine details that one often doesn't see when looking at the larger whole.

These require a somewhat unnatural processing, with a substantial boost in vibrance to bring out things like moss and lichen and a very large increase in local contrast to bring out textures. I've experimented with a bunch of tools for the latter but haven't yet fully sorted them out because the vendors provide so little information about them.

I've mentioned Wavelet processing here before, so pardon the repetition:

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Wavelets#Contrast.

I don't know if LR or PS can do them. GIMP has a plugin somewhere and RawTherapee has a whole tab's worth ...

[Manfred M]

I've mentioned Wavelet processing here before, so pardon the repetition:

http://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Wavelets#Contrast.

I don't know if LR or PS can do them. GIMP has a plugin somewhere and RawTherapee has a whole tab's worth ...

My understanding is that Photoshop's Smart Sharpen filter is the closest to Wavelet sharpening in the Adobe products.

I do use it on occasion, but have not found that it gives me an outcome that I like better than the way I apply USM. I tend to apply sharpening in areas and locally, rather than globally, so I get a lot more nuance with that work flow.

[DanK]

Hmm. This stretches the limits of my understanding, but let me try to sort some of this out.

The USM technique you describe bears a lot of resemblance to using the LR clarity slider, as I recall.

It does, although clarity adjustments include adjustments to mid-tone contrast, and they may differ in terms of frequency. More on that below.

I tend to apply sharpening in areas and locally, rather than globally,

One can do that with Smart Sharpen too. Just make a layer with the sharpening, add a black mask, and paint with white.

Leaving aside additional adjustments, such as the mid-tone contrast included with clarity, I think you can put all of these methods on a continuum. They all bring out detail, but they differ in terms of the frequency ranges they affect. (For those not familiar with thinking of this in terms of frequency, higher frequency = finer, smaller details.) Sharpening is at the high-frequency end. "Local contrast" (USM with a very large radius) affects lower frequencies. Texture affects lower frequencies than sharpening but higher frequencies than clarity.

What makes this confusing, at least to me, is that of all the methods I know, the only one that clearly indicates what you are actually doing is USM. You can change the frequencies affected by simply changing the radius. I generally use the 50 pixels recommended years ago by someone on Luminous Landscape, but there is no reason to be constrained to this.

I have never found anything by Adobe clearly saying what Smart Sharpen does, but most of the non-Adobe sources I have seen say that it is deconvolution sharpening, not wavelet sharpening. I don't know whether to believe it. Does anyone have a good, trustworthy source of information about this?

Nothing I use has wavelet sharpening, which as I understand it breaks the image into frequency ranges you define and lets you operate on each of them separately. Sounds nifty. In practice, what I do is a kludgy way of approximating this, by making separate adjustments to texture, clarity, and sharpness.

I'd like to do some A/B comparisons, but it would be time consuming to do.

[Manfred M]

Dan - I use USM for very much the same reason you do, I understand what all of the parameters do.

The problem with Smart Sharpen is that I don't know what is under the cover and I remember some years back, Adobe re-wrote the Smart Sharpen algorithms and there was a bit of noise as people got used to it. Unfortunately, with proprietary software protecting the intellectual property is key, so the information out on the web is often little more than someone's best guess, unless someone on the development team posts something.

That being said, I have almost never run into a situation where I was not happy with what I can do with these tools and a lot of the chatter on the internet is really just that. When that happens, there is a large community out there (like CiC) and my personal contacts in the local photography community to discuss and try things.

When it comes to "experts" who look at my and others work, there have been discussions on some of the sharpening decisions that have been made, but the actual tools that were used have never cropped up.

[DanK]

I agree. I generally only get questions about postprocessing from other photographers who are interested in learning about different techniques (which is why I sometimes ask people).

As a practical matter, I have found that the addition of the texture slider has been a big help. It was billed as being different because it accentuates finer details than clarity, but I like it more because it is like USM: it seems to be doing nothing but enhancing detail. I can add mid-tone contrast myself if I want it.

I have seen a number of A/B comparisons of texture and clarity on the web. What I haven't seen are (1) comparisons of USM-based local contrast adjustments using different radii, and (2) comparisons of USM-based local contrast adjustments to the LR/ACR texture and clarity sliders, or to Nik's structure adjustment.

Dan - I use USM for very much the same reason you do, I understand what all of the parameters do.

The problem with Smart Sharpen is that I don't know what is under the cover and I remember some years back, Adobe re-wrote the Smart Sharpen algorithms and there was a bit of noise as people got used to it. Unfortunately, with proprietary software protecting the intellectual property is key, so the information out on the web is often little more than someone's best guess, unless someone on the development team posts something.

That being said, I have almost never run into a situation where I was not happy with what I can do with these tools and a lot of the chatter on the internet is really just that. When that happens, there is a large community out there (like CiC) and my personal contacts in the local photography community to discuss and try things.

When it comes to "experts" who look at my and others work, there have been discussions on some of the sharpening decisions that have been made, but the actual tools that were used have never cropped up.

[selig1656]

Love the details in the wood and the subtle image in the glass,terrific capture.

[Wavelength]

Superb!!!