...
Any more methods?
Any one willing to take this on?
Thanks,
Dave
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Good question but tough to answer. I've tried the following on four or five different images from my medium format Astia 100F and Velvia 100 transparency and B/W 100 TMax film scans:
Akvis Enhancer (two versions), Photolift, Photokit Sharpener Creative Sharpening and Photokit Sharpener Haze Cutter, The Lights Right (TLR) local contrast, Photomatrix Detail Enhancer, DOP detail enhancer, and USM 20,50,0 (and variations of that). Most of my comparisons were done at 50% or 100% views on my Artisan monitor but I also made 8x10 prints in some of these comparisons.
There are many factors to consider, some of which include:
- film scan vs. digital camera (I have no experience with images from digital cameras)
- is noise reduction applied before and/or after (I often use Noise Ninja)
- are you allowing for application of a curves adjustment as a final tweak after application of the local contrast boost (or do you wish the tool to do it all for you)
- will you be applying a mask after the adjustment (I often mask out the sky and snow if there is any in my landscape scenes since these techniques increase noise)
- does the technique produce undesireable artifacts and if it does are you okay with spending some time to clone them out
- how important is the application interface to you (e.g. do you get feedback in a large viewing window while you are still using the application or do you have to commit the change and then view it in your image editor)
- does the application work on large files (mine are often 350 MB), does it crash, how long does it take to run
- is a batch mode important to you
- do you plan on doing capture sharpening first, then local contrast enhancement, finally output sharpening. You need to be careful you don't overdo it and take all three processes into account.
- cost !
In my testing there have been instances (e.g. with trial versions of Akvis Enhancer) when I was almost convinced it did a better job than USM 20,50,0 (or variations) but then tried adding (on top of the USM layer) a Shadow/Highlight layer and/or curve layer in Photoshop and decided the result was better that way vs. Akvis. (However, Akvis (etc) was useful in pointing me in a direction I did not visualize before using Photoshop tools). In another case, there is one color image in which I could never duplicate the nice local contrast enhancement in a rock wall (Antelope Canyon) using USM that I was able to achieve with PhotoLift. Maybe someone else could?
As of now I am happiest with PhotoLift. I like the results, I like the interface (nice and big image view), can view previous changes, adjustable texture control is handy, it doesn't crash on my 350 MB files, doesn't produce artifacts.
Bottom line: I think you need to try these for yourself as I have ... trial versions are available.
Ken