| | S | M | T | W | T | F | S | | 29 | 30 | 31 |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
| |
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
| |
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
| |
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
| |
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
| 1 | 2 | 3 | » Stats |
Members: 48,653
Threads: 78,885
Posts: 821,378
Top Poster: glsammy (14,778) | | Welcome to our newest member, paulinegrimshaw | |  | 
19-08-2008, 07:29 PM
| | Wild Member | | Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 241
| | | Raw conversion for the net help Hello,When I convert my Raw files to J.pegs,and resize them,for uploading to the internet,forums, ect,I seem to lose a lot of sharpness / quality.I only have a very old version of elements,and the software that came with my Canon 400d.Can anyone advise on how to keep the quality high when converting,even with my outdated software ?
With thanks. | 
19-08-2008, 08:02 PM
| | Officer of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Suffolk
Posts: 737
| | | Re: Raw conversion for the net help Hi Meadsman,
Convert you RAW images to jpeg and make all necessary adjustments, except sharpening.
Resize your jpeg to the required size, then apply sharpening.
Your image should then be okay for uploading to the web without a significant loss of sharpness.
I hope this helps.
Dave | 
19-08-2008, 09:46 PM
| | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: S. Devon
Posts: 3,671
| | | Re: Raw conversion for the net help If possible, use Unsharp Mask for the sharpening and don't overdo it. I usually reckon on 200% at 2 pixels is the absolute maximum, preferably half that amount.
If I am considerably reducing the size I usually sharpen last thing at full size then again after resizing downwards. Just a little then, say 30% at 1 pixel. Also, if there is a lot of size difference I like to set the resizing tool to Best Quality. | 
19-08-2008, 10:51 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nottingham
Posts: 14,778
| | | Re: Raw conversion for the net help Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoff F If possible, use Unsharp Mask for the sharpening and don't overdo it. I usually reckon on 200% at 2 pixels is the absolute maximum, preferably half that amount.
If I am considerably reducing the size I usually sharpen last thing at full size then again after resizing downwards. Just a little then, say 30% at 1 pixel. Also, if there is a lot of size difference I like to set the resizing tool to Best Quality. | I find the amount of sharpening I can do is dependant on the final image size. I don't use Unsharp Mask any more, preferring Smart Sharpen instead, although I've no idea if that's in Elements.
Always look at your image @ 100% and look out for tell tale signs that you've done too much, such as bright outlines, halo effects and a mottled look, especially on the background. | 
19-08-2008, 11:41 PM
|  | Commander of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Scunthorpe, Nth Lincs
Posts: 2,646
| | | Re: Raw conversion for the net help Personally I'd never use more than 100% sharpening or more than 1.5 pixels. | 
20-08-2008, 10:13 AM
|  | Member of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Glasgow
Posts: 491
| | | Re: Raw conversion for the net help There are loads of different ways to sharpen depending on your software etc. For me though, the final size of the image is the last thing I worry about, so my workflow goes like this: RAW editor:
Adjust curves \ WB (if necessary)
Import to PS as 16-bit tiff Photoshop:
Crop (if necessary)
Adjust levels \ contrast (if necessary)
Add a duplicate layer and run a high pass filter for selective sharpening
Convert to 8 bit
Save large jpeg
Resize
Final sharpen with Unsharp Mask (typically 0.2 - 0.3 px at 300-500%).
Save small jpeg
The RAW conversion itself doesn't need to impact on your final web-size file, but make sure you sharpen again after resizing, as resizing will always soften your image.
Zan | 
20-08-2008, 01:53 PM
|  | Knight of the Wild Empire | | Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Sheffield
Posts: 8,627
| | | Re: Raw conversion for the net help Apart from what has already been said, it may be useful to go back a step and look at the lenses used and their Optimum Aperture.
For Macro: I did quite a few tests with my macro lens to determine the optimum aperture. f16 came out best (within the normal focal range for my main subjects) but I do tend to use f22 to allow greater DoF with only slight degrading.
However the main problem with such a small aperture is sensor dust, it shows up big style! So it's vital to keep the sensor clean.
That said, DoF is not a defined area of focus but merely an 'accepted' area outside the actual focal plane.
Plus the usual ... If using a tripod ...is it good enough for the job?
Not sure if this helps, but it should ensure reasonably sharp images to begin with.
John |  | | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | | | | 29 members and 308 guests | | aeshna5, alindsay, CountrySoulmate, ddlane7, Ditiola, eeyore, Farplace, flaxton, GTH, Jason Green, John D, John_M, muldonach, paulinegrimshaw, Pepsis, pressld2, RaptorMan101, RobinV, robje29, scamps180, Scubi, serendipity, speyghillie, stickman, Suffolk-Chris, waxcap, welsh.lensman, widgeon0, Xurek | » New Wildlife Posts | | | | | | | | | | | Tawny Owl Today 08:36 PM 14 Replies, 499 Views | | | | | » New Environment Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Activity Posts | | | | | | | | | » New Community Posts | | | | | | | | | |