Why aren't all sharpening modules in ART grouped in the folder: "Detail"?

What is the point of setting “Local Contrast” in “Local editing” and “Output Sharpening” in “Transform”?

Local contract isn’t really sharpening and output sharpening is generally done late in the workflow (as opposed to capture sharpening). Organizationally I can maybe see logic for putting various modules at different places in the interface, but their order in the pipeline doesn’t change.

At least that’s my take on it, but I’m sure @agriggio can explain better.

1 Like

Hello @lphilpot,
But “Local contract” also increases the impression of sharpness.

I was just a bit confused at the beginning that ART has three modules in three different places that influence sharpness.

When do you use “output sharpening”? Only when you resize the image? I think you get a very fine sharpness with Output Sharpening. It reminds me a lot of RT’s fantastic Capture Sharpening - do you know if it’s the equivalent of that?

I’m still learning / experimenting with sharpening so I’m not the best source for advice. :grin: You’d need to search the forum, but I seem to recall reading that ART’s Sharpening is more like RT’s Capture Sharpening (which occurs at / around deomosaic) while Output Sharpening is later in the pipeline. However, that needs verification and I don’t have time ATM…

I usually do my final sharpening in GIMP / Affinity Photo as the last step in that workflow.

Here is the pipeline agriggio / ART / wiki / Pipeline — Bitbucket

Assuming this ist still up to date, you can see Output sharpening called Post-resize sharpening there, done after all other transforming tools. I think that’s why it’s near those transforming tools. I guess somewhere you need to find a balance in arranging the tools between what a tool does and where a tool fits in the workflow. For me it makes sense where it is.

Local contrast like all other tools in the Local editing tab has a masking section. They therefore can all be applied “locally”, to a certain area of the photo. You may never do it for Local contrast, nor do I, but it is possible. That’s probably why they are summarized to Local editing.


Now I understand the sense of the arrangement of these modules.

But I haven’t quite understood yet when to use output sharpening. It makes the facial whiskers so incredibly plastic, unmatched and better than any other sharpening tools. It totally reminds me of RT’s Capure Sharping. Is it comparable in the way it works?
Or does it make sense to use it only if you have the format resize before?

Hallo @apostel338,
I have looked at “The processing pipeline in ART” - but to be honest, I can’t tell from the order of the modules, with which module one sharpens sensibly in ART and with which one rather not.
But at least I see that output sharpening is at the end of the pipeline, as quite different from “capture sharpening” in RT. Surely this means that the two do not work the same at all.
My question remains: When does one use this “output sharpening” in ART? Only when you have changed the image size?

Whenever you want – but if you are looking for a recipe, then yes :slight_smile:

1 Like

I like that. Does that mean that, in principle, you can’t go wrong with ART? If I like the result, then this is the right way? Very nice.
Are there any modules that it is better not to use at the same time because they contradict each other? (Like Saturation in Tone Curves, Saturation/Vibrance and Chromaticity in Lab at the same time?).

I ask because I don’t want to get into the habit of making unnecessary mistakes. And I am always amazed how easily I can cope with ART without understanding anything of the mathematics behind it.

In general, the advice is “if it looks good, then it is good”.
If you have more specific goals and/or questions, feel free to ask. For example typically sharpening and noise reduction play against each other, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a sin to use both… :slight_smile: (especially with the “right” combination of parameters they can be made to coexist)

1 Like


I never use sharpening, so I can’t add any value. It sounds somewhat plausible that, if you resize a photo, you move sharpening behind that. But apart from that, the only rule might be “what pleases…”.

…especially on soft, noisy images!! LOL :stuck_out_tongue:

that’s great.
But of course I know about the conflict: sharpening and denoising. I’m just trying to eliminate the color noise, at least that’s how I had it done in RT. I leave the brightness noise, because I don’t like the smooth images without fine texture at all. I still need to find the appropriate settings. I want to sharpen a bit, the MFT sensor of my Panasonic can use it well.

But now I’m through for now, that is, I try one or the other setting and observe the results. That’s probably the most important thing. It may well be that in a year I already prefer other settings. But that doesn’t matter, if it seems right to me now, then it is right now.

Thank you all for your contributions.

1 Like

When I was shooting with Fuji, I didn’t need sharpening either. Panasonic MFT needs it a bit, however.

A little late, but I think there is missing an update: Denoise moved after Exposure compensation and Channel mixer seems to be after Denoise.

Why do you need to know the order of the modules in the pipeline? This is certainly a typical beginner’s question. But what influence does this knowledge have on the development of an image?

In our case with Output sharpening it helps to show some technical background and its purpose. There are probably also some enthusiasts who are more interested in how ART operates. I think it’s not that relevant for an ordinary DAU like me.

1 Like