Better way to sharpen?

[nemophoto]

I own LR CC, CaptureOne 8, DxO 9, and have Canon's DPP. On a recent job, I was playing with all four to see which would be best to use. As frequently happens, perhaps because I'm practiced and versed in it, Lightroom yielded the best overall results. But one area I've NEVER liked is it's handling of sharpening. In this respect I feel (and have always felt) Capture One seems to yield the best image, and seems to dig out the most detail in a file. And though I feel the noise handling has improved tremendously, I think DxO is better.

Has anyone ever found good basic settings for sharpening that give good detail, but doesn't massively enhance noise? The best settings I've found, for me, seem to be: Amount: 40 Radius: .8 Detail: 60 and Masking sometimes used around 5-15 (depending upon image). With this, I feel the image is not as detailed at Capture One. If i boost either Amount or Detail much more, I only seem to increase surface noise.

Any thoughts?

Nemo

P.S. - the screen for Adobe is for Camera RAW since it's the same sharpening engine as Lightroom. The image in Camera RAW was adjusted to match, as closely as possible, the default of C1 for look-and-feel. C1 is the default sharpening, Camera RAW is my typical setting. (As stated before, boosting sharpening much more only seems to boost surface granularity.)

[bns]

In my opinion .the C1 version is (way) over sharpend.

cheers,
Boudewijn Swanenburg

[PeterAit]

My go-to tool for sharpening these days is Focus Magic. It does not work within LR, but as a PS plug-in or stand-alone. Even when the image is not techincally "out of focus" this product does a very impressive job of improving sharpness. I still loet LR apply output sharpening for printing as well as the default amount of capture sharpening, but that's all.

[smahn]

I agree that LR/ACR sharpening is a weakness. I'd prefer if it gave me more Amount so I could use less Detail.

I want the ability to "over sharpen" if I so choose, just as I want the ability to clip blacks, whites, saturation, etc. I reject the notion (in advance, because I know it's coming) that Adobe is doing me a favor by keeping the sharpening tools weak.

Ideally I'd like the ability to sharpen at multiple radii, along the lines of Topaz Detail or Fixel Detailizer.

[Schewe]

Any thoughts?

I never sharpen an image in ACR/LR without adding luminance noise reduction. When you sharpen with a low radius and higher detail, it will always increase the appearance of noise which requires noise reduction.

[nemophoto]

Thanks Jeff. I always use Luminance noise reduction of some sort -- based on camera, ISO, image, etc. Normally at least a value of 10, and then go from there. I know the printing module uses your sharpening (which usually delivers great results), but in the develop module, I find it rather weak.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Are the settings you're asking for intended as capture sharpening or output to web or print? Both of your samples don't show very optimal capture sharpening.

Your C1 version has a burnished clay like finish which is an indication of too much noise reduction along with what appears to be micro-high pass style sharpening that over clarifies local contrast tonal transitions into hard halo-less edges. It's quite unnatural looking and makes me suspect you may not have fully explored what each sharpen tool can do from both C1 & ACR.

The ACR version looks as if it needs some local contrast (haze removal? Clarity?) which will make it look sharp overall. Sharpening goes hand in hand perceptually starting with fineness of edge halos (a natural looking part of sharpness) combined with local contrast which dovetails tonally into overall contrast.

I wish I could give you suggested settings that work best but it will depend on the image's resolution, lighting, contrast fineness of detail as well as the output view format intended such as down sampled for web or print.

Why not spend some time adjusting each sharpening slider viewed at 100% to see how they affect edge detail without being overly concerned with noise especially with images over 12MP which will not be seen at normal viewing distances. Halos are a natural condition of human vision. I've seen this for myself examining real objects not through a lens. It's just the thickness of halos is what must be controlled and with images over 12MP you've got a lot wiggle room. Move that Radius slider back and forth after first seeing how Amount shows improvement. Pull back on Detail if there's too much noise.

[Ellis Vener]

In my opinion .the C1 version is (way) over sharpend.

cheers,
Boudewijn Swanenburg

I agree.

[Ellis Vener]

I agree that LR/ACR sharpening is a weakness. I'd prefer if it gave me more Amount so I could use less Detail.

I want the ability to "over sharpen" if I so choose, just as I want the ability to clip blacks, whites, saturation, etc. I reject the notion (in advance, because I know it's coming) that Adobe is doing me a favor by keeping the sharpening tools weak.

Ideally I'd like the ability to sharpen at multiple radii, along the lines of Topaz Detail or Fixel Detailizer.

Have you tried finding the parameters  you like and saving that as a preset?

[kers]

Hello Nemo, If i look at the image, it seems like the images itself is not really sharp.. I see some movement? i do not know exactly...
In my opinion ACR produces sharper looking outcome than C1 ( at least on my d810 images).
I see that C1 enhances stronger some coarses detail but does that in a way some parts look sharper than others. But it could be my bad handeling of C1...
cheers, PK

[digitaldog]

In my opinion .the C1 version is (way) over sharpend.

Very much so, I agree.
One huge issue with sharpening visually is we get fooled all the time and over sharpen. Crank up the sharpening, see it's 'too much' visually and reduce. The image appears less sharp instantly and we usually crank up the slider again, over sharpening. Our eyes and brains play tricks on us. And sharpening on-screen is effective when the output is for on-screen. Sharpening for print? Image could look awful on-screen, print fantastically!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hello Nemo, If i look at the image, it seems like the images itself is not really sharp.. I see some movement? i do not know exactly...

I agree, it looks like there is motion blur that is handled poorly by generic sharpening tools.

The problem with LR sharpening is that it's trying to be a bit of everything, which by definition will lead to sub-optimal results. It should be a Capture sharpening tool, because that is an important step in Raw conversion. But then the same settings are used for additional (Creative) sharpening adjustments, which should probably use quite different radii, and amounts. Then the Detail slider, which controls the weighting between a USM type of sharpening towards zero, and deconvolution towards 100. It's always a mix, there is not either/and/or capability, and frankly the deconvolution leads to very coarse artifacts when too much weight is used, which then has to to be suppressed again by masking (instead of avoiding the artifacts in the first place).

Then to complicate matters further, it is also linked to the noise reduction, in what seems to be a non-linear way, which complicates things further. And all that without real guidance (other than a preview) to the user, will cause predictable confusion with most users.

The only thing to like about ACR/LR sharpening is the instant masking that allows to suppress the artifacts in smooth areas, but it's unfortunately much needed.

Capture One produces cleaner results with a much simpler interface. It also adds some useful features like sharpness fall-off correction.

But both could do with a serious overhaul (or better a complete redesign), to bring them to the levels that can be expected from a modern product, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart

[David Eichler]

Very much so, I agree.
One huge issue with sharpening visually is we get fooled all the time and over sharpen. Crank up the sharpening, see it's 'too much' visually and reduce. The image appears less sharp instantly and we usually crank up the slider again, over sharpening. Our eyes and brains play tricks on us. And sharpening on-screen is effective when the output is for on-screen. Sharpening for print? Image could look awful on-screen, print fantastically!

Not only fooled with sharpening. With color, contrast and brightness too. Fooled by whatever we have previously been viewing. And it is more of a problem when tired.

[David Eichler]

I own LR CC, CaptureOne 8, DxO 9, and have Canon's DPP. On a recent job, I was playing with all four to see which would be best to use. As frequently happens, perhaps because I'm practiced and versed in it, Lightroom yielded the best overall results. But one area I've NEVER liked is it's handling of sharpening. In this respect I feel (and have always felt) Capture One seems to yield the best image, and seems to dig out the most detail in a file. And though I feel the noise handling has improved tremendously, I think DxO is better.

Has anyone ever found good basic settings for sharpening that give good detail, but doesn't massively enhance noise? The best settings I've found, for me, seem to be: Amount: 40 Radius: .8 Detail: 60 and Masking sometimes used around 5-15 (depending upon image). With this, I feel the image is not as detailed at Capture One. If i boost either Amount or Detail much more, I only seem to increase surface noise.

Any thoughts?

Nemo

P.S. - the screen for Adobe is for Camera RAW since it's the same sharpening engine as Lightroom. The image in Camera RAW was adjusted to match, as closely as possible, the default of C1 for look-and-feel. C1 is the default sharpening, Camera RAW is my typical setting. (As stated before, boosting sharpening much more only seems to boost surface granularity.)

Good basic sharpening settings? Well, there are experts here who can explain with more authority. However, if I understand the process correctly, the "basic" settings may differ markedly depending upon the type of equipment you are using, the amount of noise and noise reduction used, the subject matter, and the amount and type of output sharpening you apply.

I might also suggest considering how much "clarity" you have applied, since that is also a type of edge contrast control, and wonder what others might think of that.

[Arlen]

Some past and present members here have even written entire books on the subject. Real World Image Sharpening

[rhynetc]

Has anyone tried PK Sharpener?  Someone recommended this to me yesterday as a superb alternative to LR sharpening, Nik Sharpening within LR or PS, and Topaz sharpening.  Any experience among the group of experts here?

[Bob Rockefeller]

Has anyone tried PK Sharpener?  Someone recommended this to me yesterday as a superb alternative to LR sharpening, Nik Sharpening within LR or PS, and Topaz sharpening.  Any experience among the group of experts here?

It was my understanding that Lightroom's sharpening algorithms where based on PhotoKit Sharpener's. Not true?

[Arlen]

Has anyone tried PK Sharpener?  Someone recommended this to me yesterday as a superb alternative to LR sharpening, Nik Sharpening within LR or PS, and Topaz sharpening.  Any experience among the group of experts here?

PK Sharpener is very good and many of the members here have used it; and a couple of the Pixel Genius folks who developed it are regular LuLa contributors. If you search the archives, you will find many threads about it. You could start here, which references other relevant threads:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=65760.0

[digitaldog]

It was my understanding that Lightroom's sharpening algorithms where based on PhotoKit Sharpener's. Not true?

True. Adobe has tweaked it over the years but your basic understanding is correct. LR only 'supports' capture and for output sharpening, screen and print to inkjet so not all the features of PKS II found in the Plug-in.