/p/ — Edge glow

>>4501417 (OP)
This comes from settings like sharpening, so just ease up on how much you are doing

>>4501417 (OP)
overcooking with sharpness/contrast/clarity does this

kys retard
>>4493120
>>4493120
>>4493120

>>4501427
No, realistically Photoshop do need to improve their sharpening code. I cant remember the last time they updated it. Might be 15 years. We have Ai now. It shouldnt tak much computing power to get photoshop to recognise hard colour differences on edges and get it to blend them properly.

>>4501428
this board is filled with trash, (You) included

>>4501432
Yes yes you are better than everyone here

>>4501430
that comes from pilot error, not bad code.

>>4501436
It's not really pilot error when sharpening the image produces halos. It's weak coding. There are plenty of sharpening plugins out there which manage to sharpen without producing large halos. In fact it's one of the things which alternative companies deliberately work on so as to outperform Photoshop. Adobe are the ones lagging behind. Over concentrating on AI and leaving behind the basics.

>>4501437
sharpening doesn't make halos until you push too far

>>4501439
* whispers* it shouldnt make them at all

>>4501440
you are physically asking the computer to increase the contrast across an edge by making one side lighter and the other side darker. as you get sharper the adjustment moves closer pixel wise to the actual edge, the logical overcooked conclusion is ending up with a pixel or two right on the edge being too light and a pixel or two on the other side being too dark.

how would you define avoiding that problem? you are already given a bunch of parameters and options in any software to avoid this issue, but people just want to move one slider.

>>4501441
>how would you define avoiding that problem?
Like I already said, there are plenty of programmes which already do avoid it. Yeah I know how photoshop works, but they already added some code in ACR so that you can enhance raw details, which gives you a slighlty sharper image without halos. So its not like they are completely blind to this stuff.

>>4501444
i'm calling bs because the digital sharpening problem is really similar to the optical problem and any sort of "aids" you stack on top to compensate for the issue is just going to overprocess and cause other artifact issues like ai does with almost everything now. it still comes down to pilot error. people were making sharp photos twenty years ago in the same software and if a user can't do it now the devs aren't the problem. this is the only time in my life where i'm siding with the devs btw

>>4501446
DXO, Topaz and Darktable all have proprietary sharpening software which easily outperforms Photoshops basic sharpening feature.
You get halos with photoshop because the plugin is 22 years old and relies on accentuating contrast instead of deconvolution or Ai like modern programs.

Everyone itt not understanding that sharpening should be kept to an absolute minimum because you can't add detail when it isn't really there. (except this >>4501441 guy). Any attempts to "sharpen" a fucked image simply adds artefacts, halos, and weird fuckery like moire. If you need to sharpen beyond a minimal amount you've already lost.

The only reason sharpening is acceptable is because digital bayer bullshit requires a certain application of sharpening to defeat the smeary mess that is the CFA. Film didn't struggle with this and is one contributing factor in its' pleasant look.
Anyway, better software buys you a bit more leeway, but basically anything that uses deconvolution (i.e. not adobe kek) should give good results.

>>4501440
You are asking a relatively dumb software adjustment to create detail where there wasn't any (or enough). What you're looking for is AI which just invents details and guesses to the best of it's ability. Whether or not you still consider a photo true to its form after being run through this AI shitfuck is up to you.

>>4501456
>Whether or not you still consider a photo true to its form after being run through this AI shitfuck is up to you.

To change the colour of fringing so that it looks more natural and more like what was actually in the scene? Yes I think they could live with that. We're changing the colour of some haloing, not removing entire features.

>>4501457
You just plainly assume that the AI isn't doing other shit even though AI is inheritly a mess of data being guessed and applied willy nilly?
I applaud your faith in the AI-bros anon. Hows your stock portfolio this week?

>>4501463
>Hows your stock portfolio this week?
Very healthy. I bet against America.

>>4501457
as soon as you remove the haloing you lose the edge clarity lmao

>>4501437
Sharpening and clarity does produce haloes, that is how it works. Just make a gradient in PS and dial up the sharpening and/or clarity on it you will see how it works. The word you are looking at here is "acutance". Simon D'Entremont has some cool videos about it.

>>4501456
> bayer
Imagine hating on Bayer when phone cameras exist.

>>4501805
anon what do you think phones use

I don't think I've ever had to deal with halos, and I'm not sure how it turned out this way. The only sharpening I apply is a light unsharp mask just after downsampling.

>>4501841
Tiny sensors, shit optics, and a lot of slop post processing?

>>4501844
if your camera settings are ideal you won't have to use much sharpening, people get artifacts from turd polishing with the cope slider trying to undo the fact that they missed focus again

>>4501845
Yes yes and yes, but also a bayer filter.

>>4501417 (OP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking
This is 100% software created.
You can't remove this or fix it. You can't undo the harm this shit does to your image. If you shoot RAW and don't let software destroy your images in the first place you won't have to put up with this shit.

If you want quality you need to stop trying to fake sharpness or image clarity and start using a high res sensor and appropriate lens. Being a crop faggot or Adobe user is perpetual inadequacy. Digital zoom is not good and any "enhancements" you apply to images will always be doing something nasty.

>>4501805
Bayer has issues.
Higher resolution solves a fair bit of them.
We're not even close to being there yet.

>>4501866
Not only bayer but quad bayer and nona bayer which are worse. Instead of subsampling color in a 2x2 grid they subsample in a 4x4 or 6x6 grid.

48MP quad bayer = binned 12MP bayer
108MP nona bayer = binned 12MP bayer

If only people knew how bad things really were.

>>4501417 (OP)
Reducing the magnification might help.

File: IMG_3477.jpg (741 KB, 1800x1212)

>>4501417 (OP)
just don’t sharpen the images. Let them be a bit soft
Picrel I took yesterday

File: IMG_3479.jpg (891 KB, 1800x1212)

>>4509903
pixel peepers should go eat shit
>used to be a pixel peeper myself

>>4509903
Good take, the longer I shoot, the less I've cared about perfect pixel peeping
I don't even like doing lens corrections for older glass anymore, it's supposed to be a photo, so I want to lean into the optical qualities of what I'm using, not hide them
Just like there are different forms of paintings, sometimes hyperrealism is cool and has practical value, other times it just looks sterile and inorganic

File: IMG_3492.jpg (659 KB, 1800x1212)

>>4509929
Lovely example with the paintings and ductus

File: imperfectlenses.jpg (1.68 MB, 3000x2000)

>>4509949
I dig it, here are a few of mine from a few of my favorite lenses

>>4509903
But this doesn't look very soft at all. Practically every leaf is sharply defined.

>>4509903
This is nice, I enjoy it.

>>4509903
>>4509905
Because the sharpness does not make or break the image when the color and the depth is the subject.

>>4501417 (OP)
Do you have an original that is not so heavily processed?

>>4513276
if you have a good lens, a good focus, a good exposure, and if you dont shoot fuji, you dont really need sharpening.

>>4513290
But that post was about embracing image softness, not ensuring your images are sharp by buying the right gear.

>>4513276
That is because anon managed to find good light and exposed correctly. There is contrast between the leaves > things look sharp

>>4513296
If he's choosing lighting conditions that make his images look sharp then he's not letting his images be soft like he claims.

>>4513297
I mean he's also got a deep DoF and a high enough shutter speed to avoid any sort of motion blur. Those two alone normally have a lot to contribute to an imagine being considered "sharp", which is facilitated by having lots of light.

>>4513296
It's 1800px wide... When you downsize something to 50% (assuming that isn't a crop) it looks sharper. When he looked at the original size it was probably a little soft.