Skip navigation
magritte
Currently Being Moderated

sharpen image in photoshop?

Mar 4, 2012 4:45 AM

Apertures.jpg

Hi

 

I have a some RAW images in (cr2 files) and not all the pictures are in focus (only about half of each picture, so i would like to make everything in focus) there isnt any option to redo the pictures but, what are my options to sharpen it, that visually seems everything in focus!!!

 

can you give me couple of options as i was playing in photoshop something and always i managed to push the sharpness a little but also i need to be believable, to be done well and to seem to be done not in photoshop or exaggerated,( but to think was done when the image was taken)

 

So how can i sharpen the image(make things in focus ) please?

 

(The image is like the one i have attached, first obect is in focus and the background is not, and i would like to try making everything  like the first one in focus)

 

Thank you

 
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 6:45 AM   in reply to magritte

    Sharpening has nothing to do with bringing motives into focus. It is an imaging technique to get the edges, which are already in focus, more crispy in print or on screen.

    You could take several pictures from the scene and merge them together: File > Automate > Photomerge…

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 6:21 AM   in reply to magritte

    One of the fundamental axioms in photography is that if it's out of focus, it's gone. That was true in 1912, and it's true in 2012. It's all about entropy. Think of it as pouring a hot and a cold cup of water into a pan...

     

    That said, there are magic tricks that can to some degree pull out whatever's left, and make a believable result out of it. But don't expect miracles. If it's gone, it's gone.

     

    In the meantime, experiment with unsharp mask. Try different settings for amount and radius. That should give you a rough idea of what's possible with what you have. And then you can possibly rebuild the rest, using parts of the image that are in focus.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 6:28 AM   in reply to magritte

    There are some sophisticated blur correction tools still on the drawing boards that might some day be able to help with this kind of problem, but even they will have limitations.

     

    There's also a camera design that supposedly records holographically so as to be able to recover whatever depth of field you want, but again that's half legend and half still on the drawing boards.

     

    The reality is, as the others have said, that there's nothing available now to allow you to fix this.  This is why the art of actually doing the photography so as to get all the elements to come out the way you'll need for your image work is not lost just yet. 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 7:00 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:


    This is why the art of actually doing the photography so as to get all the elements to come out the way you'll need for your image work is not lost just yet. 

    A very important lesson that people tend to learn the hard way. Kids today grow up with the notion that everything can be fixed later in Photoshop. And in a sense it can; it's all just pixels after all, and pixels can be shuffled around. But what that really amounts to is like putting toothpaste back into the tube after you jumped on it. What a mess to clean up!

     

    My working philosophy is to get everything right as early as possible in the process. Taking that extra trouble is simply a huge time-saver in the long run.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,052 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 7:43 AM   in reply to magritte

    Hello, are all the photos of the same subject? Is the focus point the same?

    If yes to both questions, you can do focus stacking in Photoshop... http://www.drkrishi.com/adobe-photoshop-cs4-auto-blending-focus-tutori al

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 7:45 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    ......

    There's also a camera design that supposedly records holographically so as to be able to recover whatever depth of field you want, but again that's half legend and half still on the drawing boards.

    ......

     

    Apropos to what Noel said, you can buy a camera today that will allow you to have variable focus after the image is captured.

     

    Paulo

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 7:50 AM   in reply to Paulo Skylar

    Perhaps it's advanced farther than I thought, but I haven't seen any actual results from one.

     

    So...  Did you order one Paulo? 

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 8:00 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    No, I tend to be a new technology awareness guy, but not an early adopter .

     

    Paulo

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 9:54 AM   in reply to Paulo Skylar

    I found some clickable (in Safari) samples here:

     

    http://mashable.com/2012/03/01/lytro-camera-gallery/

     

    I find it interesting that all the samples seem to show somewhat marginal image quality.  I'm guessing this may mean the technology is only currently good enough for (smallish) web imagery.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 9:57 AM   in reply to Paulo Skylar

    Amazing. I had no idea it had come this far already. I assume it will be many years before this makes its way into the mainstream consumer market, and as many more before it makes its way into the professional market. No reason to cancel the order for a PhaseOne P45+.

     

    But eventually it'll get there. At the moment it's something like 1000 pixels, but the first dslr's weren't much more.

     

    http://k9ventures.com/blog/2011/06/22/the-making-of-lytro/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 10:18 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    I found some clickable (in Safari) samples here:

    .....

     

    -Noel

    There are also examples on the Lytro web site, which you would imagine are the best currently available.

    Yes, they are not yet ready to challenge Canon. Still, an impressive achievement, that is, the initial reduction to practice.

     

    Paulo

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 11:29 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    Think I will hold out for the CSI Photoshop version where you can take a blurry image taken from 300 feet at night, and get a clear color image of the tattoo on his right arm.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 11:52 AM   in reply to Curt Y

    ...And don't forget how it's been stored on an ancient VHS security tape.  The show "Law & Order" does the same kind of stuff.

     

    I once actually saw security camera footage that really did identify a person clearly (whom, in that particular case, stole some lawn furniture).  It turned out the security system in total cost well in excess of $100,000.00 to get that kind of performance.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 12:32 PM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    PECourtejoie wrote:

     

    Hello, are all the photos of the same subject? Is the focus point the same?

    If yes to both questions, you can do focus stacking in Photoshop... http://www.drkrishi.com/adobe-photoshop-cs4-auto-blending-focus-tutori al

     

    I've never tried Focus Stacking in Photoshop, but did play around with a specialized program called Helicon Focus that can completely automate the process, and was very impressed with the results. 

     

    Of course everything has to be set up right, camera locked down on a tripod, aperture and shutter speed set, and if you want the taking of the stack automated, you need your camera connected to a notebook or desktop running the software. Alternatively you can simply change the focus manually between shots, but if you have it automated the software works out the optimum number of shots required depending on the nearest and furthest focusing points, and the aperture you're shooting at. 

     

    Unfortunately I wouldn't use it anywhere near enough to warrant the cost, but it was definitely interesting to play with!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 12:38 PM   in reply to pf22

    I have several friends who are adept photographers and who use Helicon Focus to great benefit.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 7:30 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Pretty hard to do in a wildlife refuge! Or packing into a magnificient mountain range. Even the Hasselblad was never that bad!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,974 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 8:40 PM   in reply to magritte

    Focus Stacking works really well with CS5.  In fact I am not sure why you would need to pay the not insignificant price for Helicon if you already own CS5.

     

    As already advised, OOF is always going to remain OOF, but you can cheat a bit with shapes like the pears in the OP.  Select with the pen tool, and use the clone tool to harden the inside edge.  Then invert the selection and use th eClone tool to harden the outside edge.  This is still highly compromised though, because while it produce a sharp outline, the texture of the object will remain blurred.  Better to to put down to life's great learning curve, and do it properly next time.

     

    BTW,  Call me sad, but I am on the road, and had to dip in for a look see.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 4, 2012 8:47 PM   in reply to Willi Adelberger

    Willi Adelberger wrote:

     

    You could take several pictures from the scene and merge them together: File > Automate > Photomerge…

    To clarify, I mean here take several pictures with different focus point and merge it to one. Other are naming it Focus Stacking, I am describing the function in Photoshop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,974 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:42 AM   in reply to magritte

    I am afraid most of the discussion in this thread has been of a general nature.  You are never going to make those pictures fully sharp, or even improve them to an acceptable extent.  Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 11:54 AM   in reply to magritte

    The stacking feature or photo merge can only be done with different images. E.g. in your example you would havt ot make several images, for each item or distance a different one with that item in focus. All these images are merged into a single one with the part which is infocus.

    If you have only one given image you are out of luck. As I said before sharpening images has nothing to do with bringing images into focus. The sharpening techniques (there are different avalable) are a help to make things which are already in focus to print more crispy because pixel without sharpening would make the image a little bit to soft. This techinique comes from an old method in photo laboratory where a film in the size of the image was made with the image a little bit blured and later when the image was produced the image was masked with this film, so lighter part of an edge became brighter and the darker part becomes even darker. After that all the edges looked much crispier than before.

    The values for radius and amount are depending on the content of an image, thin hairs will require a smaller radius as compared some big thing. But this all you will learn when you do it very often. If you use to high values you will get a halo effect, and when you think on the screen it is to much it might be way to less when you go to print with that image.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:03 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Hi Noel... out of interest, what kind of photography do they do, microphotography, product, food etc?

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    I have several friends who are adept photographers and who use Helicon Focus to great benefit.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 6:42 PM   in reply to pf22

    One is a retired sports/event photographer who shoots flower macros a lot now, and the other has been developing his micro-photography skills.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 8:12 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    More than one way to skin a cat.

     

    Sunday I want shooting at a wildlife refuge. There were a pair of bald eagles in the tree tops and I started photographing them. I had a dozen frames from essentially one spot and two frames, almost identical, were the best. However, one frame had the birds razor sharp, the other had the tree branches immediately in front of and surrounding the birds razor sharp. I opted for the sharp birds of course, but then I examined the other image and saw that I could layer the sharp bird on top the sharp branches and run Align Images. It was almost perfect, so I took the eraser and started erasing the unsharp branches. Half hour later, I had my image. (Tip: Turn the top image on and off while doing the erase. You quickly find where it works and where it doesn't).

     

    Now I realize it was a lucky break. I knew the AF would grab the branches and so I really had to focus carefully and shoot several frames. But I am delighted with the results.

     

    Of course, photo wildlife juries would never accept the result because I altered the original. funny because the eye actually sees both branch and bird sharp. It's only the camera that doesn't but hell, the eye lies, the camera doesn't.

     

     

    ©2012Lawrence HudetzEagle-Comp-copy.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,974 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 9:47 PM   in reply to magritte

    From a compositional and aesthetic PoV, the limited DoF in the OP's picture is spot on.  You have a clear point of interest with a relevant background texture.  It would be a less pleasing image if it was fully sharp.   As Photographers we often strive to produce unrealistic DoFs and ruin our images by denying them of depth.  We could learn those people who create scenes in oil, water colour etc. and take note of how they fade the distant image elements and reduce contrast.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 6, 2012 10:23 PM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    I assume the eagle image has been down rezzed by a factor of ten or something, because it is not too sharp as dsiplayed here.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 4:52 AM   in reply to Hudechrome

    Hudechrome wrote:

     

    Of course, photo wildlife juries would never accept the result because I altered the original.

    There is a lot of moral panic over "photoshopping" out there, never underestimate it.

     

    People believe a photograph is "truthful" so long as it hasn't been touched by Photoshop. How sweetly naive that is. The most powerful manipulation of all is the act of selecting what goes in the frame and what is left out. You can tell monumental lies that way.

     

    Choice of focal length is a close second. In the local paper there is a huge debate over a proposed building project that some feel destroys the view from a protected site nearby. Predictably, the builder presented a 20mm wide-angle shot where you could barely make out a tiny spot in the beautiful scenery, and the other side quickly countered with a telephoto shot filled to the frame edges with all kinds of ugly stuff. And the amazing thing was, they argued over whether the images were "manipulated"...oh, how sweetly naive. I bet the photographers at the paper had a lot of fun with this (no, let's not tell them <giggle>...)

     

    Nice shot, Lawrence. The closest I ever got to an eagle is this (200mm, full frame). Not a great shot at all because of the silhouette and dull light, but it was a great moment nevertheless. Magnificent birds:

     

    havørn2.jpg

     

    But could I see it with the exposure dropped a little in ACR? I have this feeling that the head of the left one is just a tiny bit over. Does it look like that to you?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 4:54 AM   in reply to Hudechrome

    They always say to avoid foreground materials that are OOF, but in the eagle image Lawrence put up it kind of seems to me the eagles now seem secondary, even though they're not blurred.  I think my eye expects them to be blurred because all the foreground branches are so sharp.

     

    Would you be willing to put up the single image with the branches slightly blurred, Lawrence?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 5:10 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    Or you could go to the zoo...    Then you might need the opposite effects - too much DOF making you want to blur the background more...  Blur Photoshop can do...

     

    Eagle.jpg

     

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 5:15 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Or you could go to the zoo...

    Nah, that's cheating...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 8:39 AM   in reply to Lundberg02

    Must be your system. I'ts quite sharp here, even copying the image, opening in PS and enlarging it full screen.

     

    It is a small portion of the full frame, equivalent to 600mm from a D90, 300mm. Hand held, btw., f11, 1/400sec

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 8:46 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    ©2012Lawrence HudetzEagle-Comp-copy_1.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 9:02 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    Exposure right on. There is both black and white clipping, assuring the bast possible print. At least by my standards.

     

    I don't intend to enter this in any competition. I hate them. Especially when judged by other photographers. Most cannot see beyond their own egos! Many, many years ago, I happened to visit the Chicago Camera Club. They happened to have an Adams print gathering dust on top of a filing cabinet! I asked why and found a rather nasty comeback, going on to list all the "errors" he made! I demurred and their comeback was to "show up and learn the ropes"!

     

    I never went back. Guess I still haven't "learned the ropes".

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,534 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 9:32 AM   in reply to Hudechrome

    I'm away from my office right now and only seeing your second image on a tiny screen, but I like this one better...  It just seems more natural to me.

     

    -Noel 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 9:52 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Referring to Trevor's post above, my SO is a arts graduate and quite familiar with the painterly expressions, naturalism etc. She prefers the sharp version.

     

    The eye saw it all sharp, and so the effort to maintain this presence has been one of the goals since photography began. Well, almost. There have been movements, notably Henry Peach Robinson, to establish the painterly approach, which gave rise to f64 in California, with members including Adams, Weston and others who strove for critical sharpness across the entire image.

     

    Today, counter views abound, especially in portraiture. The fact that bokeh has a following, and that DxO actually has a control for it in v7, (which seems to hardly matter-my bokeh must be really bad-or maybe perfect!) indicates that unsharpness somewhere in the image has advantages.

    To each his own, and I have mixed feelings about either version.

     

    The eagles take up residency each year that the refuge along with other birds like a white swan named George. I caught him as well, but I rejected all the shots. So I'll be back. I also intend to make several runs to the big bird refuge in SE Oregon, the Malhuer.

     

    Should be interesting!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 5:54 PM   in reply to magritte

    Years ago, there was an article in Scientific American about software used by intelligence agencies that would analyze blur, determine what optical effects produced it, and would then sythesize an image without the blur. This was very mathematicaly complex, and used a super computer -  probably still does.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,974 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 6:39 PM   in reply to Semaphoric

    Regards Photoshop and wildlife images, it is a simple matter of what is acceptable in your designated end use of the image.  There are clear rules in al Natural History photographic competitions, and they nearly always specifically preclude the use of image manipulation beyond contrast, sharpening etc.   Some insist you use a minimum percentage of the original exposure (you can't enter a radically cropped image), some say no Zoo or wildlife park images, others say zoos are OK if no 'hand of man is visible'.

     

    Which reminds me of a story.

     

    Graeme Guy is one of the best wild life photographers in the world. I had the pleasure of teaching him HDR and Photoshop at the 2010 PSNZ National Convention, and had the chance to ask him about some of his techniques.  The shots in question were his amazing humming bird  images where he manages to freeze their wing movement.

     

    It turned out that he uses seven small strobes set at minimum power (1/128th) giving an effective shutter speed of less than 1/30,000th of a second.  I asked him how it was that with so much close range strobe light, the backgrounds were not black, and it turned out that two of the seven strobes light a false BG, (an A3 photograph, or netting).  Graeme gennerally takes all the medals in New Zealand wildlife competitions, so I asked why were his backgrounds acceptable as they were clearly 'hand of man'.  The answer is that they are so OOF that you can't really see them, (this came from a close friend of Graeme's who happens to be a leading PSNZ wildlife judge!).

     

    Hmmm....   Ears must have been listening, as the rules were changed after that, and false BGs no longer allowed.

    http://grguy.smugmug.com/Naturephotographs/Costa-Rica-and-Ecuador/i-RPdKnwJ/0/M/Long-tailed-Sylph-feeding-M.jpg

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 7, 2012 6:53 PM   in reply to Semaphoric

    That work was done in part anyway, at Sandia Labs. I did a search on such matters years before Google...in the library! I saw an image in which not much at all was discerable, then they applied their algoritm(s) and voila!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,052 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 8, 2012 3:44 AM   in reply to magritte

    We still haven't heard from Magritte is the Photos are from similar subjects, or if each photo is different, and has too much depth of field.

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points