Ok, Post Processing

Conversely, I always sharpen the full-size image, before downsizing. To me it's much more preferable for the sharpening algorithm to have as many pixels as possible to work with. The difference between the 5 million pixels of one of my regular shots, and the 640,000 pixels of my usual presentation size, means that transitions sharpened in the small image might be only two adjacent pixels instead of a series of 4-6 pixels in the fullsize image. Makes it much more difficult for the software to get it right with so much less data, and downsizing afterwards blends the sharpen into a much more natural-looking image.

Caveat: I have yet to shoot a coin in RAW. There has been no need, given the quality of the .jpegs I get. It may be that my thinking is less-relevant when all of these adjustments are being made as part of RAW processing.

Here's another take on sharpening. How much do you need to sharpen at full size (4928x3264, 8x final size of 616x408) to have equivalent sharpening at final size? I had to go to a sharpening value of "10" at 8x to equal a sharpening value of "1" at 1x. Here is the result:

RAW-->Sharpen "10"-->jpg616

I looked up "unsharp mask" on Wikipedia and realize that my simple editor with single-number sharpening inputs is woefully over-simplified. Here's one statement:

The threshold control constrains sharpening to image elements that differ from each other above a certain size threshold, so that sharpening of small image details, such as photographic grain, can be suppressed.

And here are some more details:

Typically three settings control digital unsharp masking:

* Amount is listed as a percentage, and controls the magnitude of each overshoot (how much darker and how much lighter the edge borders become). This can also be thought of as how much contrast is added at the edges. It does not affect the width of the edge rims.
* Radius affects the size of the edges to be enhanced or how wide the edge rims become, so a smaller radius enhances smaller-scale detail. Higher Radius values can cause halos at the edges, a detectable faint light rim around objects. Fine detail needs a smaller Radius. Radius and Amount interact; reducing one allows more of the other.
* Threshold controls the minimum brightness change that will be sharpened or how far apart adjacent tonal values have to be before the filter does anything. This lack of action is important to prevent smooth areas from becoming speckled. The threshold setting can be used to sharpen more-pronounced edges, while leaving subtler edges untouched. Low values should sharpen more because fewer areas are excluded. Higher threshold values exclude areas of lower contrast.

I assume these 3 elements are somehow convolved into a single number for the sharpening algorithm I have been using. Any sharpening experts out there? ...Ray

I'm just using the basic functions of Nikon ViewNX. I have photoshop but don't know how to use it. I think I have an old version of Lightroom as well. I'll check it out and see if the version I have has more extensive controls.

I see a huge difference between the non-sharpened images and the sharpened ones. It's not that easy to see just looking from photo to photo, but tabbing between them it's quite obvious.

Frankly, when I switched from Photoshop to the Gimp I abandoned Unsharp Mask. The Gimp's Sharpen function - a linear scale from 0-99 - is so intelligent that manipulating multiple settings in Unsharp Mask is irrelevant to coins. I Sharpen if I'm unsatisfied with the sharpness at full size; with a dedicated Macro lens and 12MP camera producing Morgan images 2400px in diameter, if it's in focus at all full size, it'll be perfectly presentable at one-third that size.

Regarding your results, Ray - at this posting resolution, I see more difference in the images depending on where they're located on my monitor screen than I do when I compare them all in the same place. It's another consideration.

Given the quality of your initial images, I see no need to become sophisticated with any form of sharpening.

That's the goal. Let the camera/optics do the heavy lifting. Even in the presence of excellent optics, of course, lighting will always be somewhat of voodoo so there's still room for skill regardless of how vehemently I harp on the importance of the quality of your camera gear.

It's a constant struggle to balance the concept of just telling everyone to buy expensive gear, and helping them to maximize the quality of what they've got. And, as aladinslamp's work (among a large number of others) indicates, you can create pretty darn good images which more than satisfy any requirements we as collectors could place upon them, with relatively inexpensive kit.

Heck, some of the finest images I've ever seen posted at Coin Community were created using a Canon superzoom (S5 IS) with a Canon 500D add-on macro lens. Easily equivalent to what I was doing with a dSLR and 100mm Macro at the time at a fraction of the cost.

Most people don't want to stare as closely at individual pixels as you and I. There's no need to truly maximize the quality of what you're posting here; most of us have eyes which wouldn't keep up and monitors which couldn't display it anyways.

So, the need for balance exists. Not for you or me - we're stuck with champagne taste on a beer budget - but others are more grounded than we.

I do want to thank both Ray and Dave for ALL of the posts you have contributed in these last few months, there have been many and on such a variety of photo concerns...It's like to Professors who continue to expand there knowledge by there experiments and share with us common folk,,and yet they can speak to the common folk and the higher minds and share what they are learning....For some it may be way over the top, but to some of us, it really lets us understand HOW THE CAMERA WORKS without going to some college course.... and weather
its a Chevy or Ford, Nikon or Canon. each camera is based on the same principles. Each camera manufacturer has its own ideas or engineers on how to solve those problems of the casual photographer to get the shots they need....while high end will cost so much money, these guys really help us get the most out of what we have....and how to do it....
In the past 2 months I have found my photo's change from average to very pleasing in my eye's and I know nothing about cameras. I went through 3 cameras to find out the basics of what I need to use with out spending $1000 plus, though I would love to..I have an eye for exception quality but not the pockets for my eyes....These guys have really accentuated the important parts of basic MACRO photography for us coin lovers....
This post was to do exactly the same thing and bring out the importance's of Post imaging....its effects can be astounding....

For this post lets have some more examples of post imaging,,Frankly I thought most of Rays images were so good I couldn't see the difference, yet your color correction of my other post was really noticeable...Gene
By the way its great to have you guys here