Photokit Sharpener

[petercook80]

I am going to try out Photokit Sharpener with a strong view to making a purchase but have a few questions that I cant see the answers to. (I have asked the photokit team this but thought I would also ask here as well)

1. When output sharpening for inkjet should I 'resample' my image to match one of the ppi presets in Photokit or is it best to select the nearest preset to the native resolution of the image? (Its just that Jeff Schewe in the Luminous Landscape video tutorial 'From Camera to Print' says its generally best to leave the native resolution as it is and resize for print without resampleing, though in his example the image happens to almost exactly match one of the presets. But what if its native resolution falls between to of the presets)?

2. Should I carry out noise reduction before or after the capture shaprening stage (I use Neat Image noise reduction and it can hande 16bit images) ?

Many Thanks

Peter Cook

[PeterAit]

I am going to try out Photokit Sharpener with a strong view to making a purchase but have a few questions that I cant see the answers to. (I have asked the photokit team this but thought I would also ask here as well)

1. When output sharpening for inkjet should I 'resample' my image to match one of the ppi presets in Photokit or is it best to select the nearest preset to the native resolution of the image? (Its just that Jeff Schewe in the Luminous Landscape video tutorial 'From Camera to Print' says its generally best to leave the native resolution as it is and resize for print without resampleing, though in his example the image happens to almost exactly match one of the presets. But what if its native resolution falls between to of the presets)?

2. Should I carry out noise reduction before or after the capture shaprening stage (I use Neat Image noise reduction and it can hande 16bit images) ?

Many Thanks

Peter Cook

As I understand it, as long as the image to be printed is at least 180 dpi (after resizing to the print size), then there's no need to resample. As long as you have at least 180 dpi, the printer driver will do the best job of processing the image for the specific printer.

Peter

[petercook80]

As I understand it, as long as the image to be printed is at least 180 dpi (after resizing to the print size), then there's no need to resample. As long as you have at least 180 dpi, the printer driver will do the best job of processing the image for the specific printer.

Peter

Thanks Peter, though its not the printer driver I was questioning its the settings in the PhotoKit Sharpener-Output sharpening that I was seeking an answer on.

[petercook80]

I have got a reply from the PhotoKit team which I thought I would post for the sake of clarity...

"As Jeff suggests, set the size and let the pixels fall where they may.  
Pick the next closest higher value shown in our dialog for output. It  
does not need to exactly match.
 
Do noise reduction first, then capture sharpening."
 

[Mark D Segal]

Jeff may well answer this himself, but my two-cents worth from using this application with a large number of images is that it will suffice to select the nearest PKS preset to your output resolution. So for example, let us say when you resize WITHOUT resampling, you end-up with the print dimensions you want, but the output resolution happens to be 330 PPI. Then it is a toss-up whether you use the 300 or the 360 PKS preset. You will get slightly less sharpening effect with the former than with the latter. When you inspect the image at 100% you can decide to the extent feasible with a display (limited) whether you have enough, too little, too much and redo as needed, or dial down the opacity of the PKS pass-through layer if you find the effect too strong.

When I am compositing several images to one background page, as I often do (printing more than one image on a large sheet), everything needs to be at the same output PPI, so for these cases I do resample the individual images to 360 (same as my background page) using Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper (downsizing) or Bicubic Smoother (upsizing) as appropriate. Within the ranges I'm resampling and up to the 13*19 inches at which I print, I do not see a quality hit. I also know of one very knowledgeable photographer who does resample all images to 360 PPI in order to get a perfect match between the PKS preset and the output resolution of the file.

So bottom line, within certain limits you have lots of flexibility to approach it in different ways. Experiment a bit and see what you think is best adapted to your needs.

[Mark D Segal]

OK, I was typing as you were posting. But we're coherent.

[CynthiaM]

I have got a reply from the PhotoKit team which I thought I would post for the sake of clarity...

"As Jeff suggests, set the size and let the pixels fall where they may.  
Pick the next closest higher value shown in our dialog for output. It  
does not need to exactly match.
 
Do noise reduction first, then capture sharpening."

Trying to clarify what this means in terms of workflow.  If the image has a lot of noise, so that a 3rd party noise reduction software needs to be applied, in the raw converter, should the noise and sharpening sliders be pulled all the way to the left, then bring into Photoshop, apply noise reduction, then capture sharpening with PK Sharpener, before proceeding with any other edits?

[digitaldog]

Trying to clarify what this means in terms of workflow.  If the image has a lot of noise, so that a 3rd party noise reduction software needs to be applied, in the raw converter, should the noise and sharpening sliders be pulled all the way to the left, then bring into Photoshop, apply noise reduction, then capture sharpening with PK Sharpener, before proceeding with any other edits?

Sharpening and noise reduction sliders where? A Raw converter? Which one?

Basically yes, apply noise reduction then PK Sharpener. But if you're using a Raw converter, you have to disable that first or you'll "double" sharpen.

[Mark D Segal]

Trying to clarify what this means in terms of workflow.  If the image has a lot of noise, so that a 3rd party noise reduction software needs to be applied, in the raw converter, should the noise and sharpening sliders be pulled all the way to the left, then bring into Photoshop, apply noise reduction, then capture sharpening with PK Sharpener, before proceeding with any other edits?

There are choices:

(1) You can reduce noise and capture sharpen in LR and ACR; those programs will - under the hood - implement things in the right order upon rendering the image into Photoshop.

(2) If you prefer a 3rd party noise reduction program, as you don't want to sharpen the noise, you would zero-out the sharpening in the raw converter, render the image into Photoshop, first apply your noise reduction program, then do Capture Sharpening with PK Sharpener; then proceed with any other edits.

[Mark D Segal]

Sharpening and noise reduction sliders where? A Raw converter? Which one?

Basically yes, apply noise reduction then PK Sharpener. But if you're using a Raw converter, you have to disable that first or you'll "double" sharpen.

Hi Andrew, just saw your post afer I posted; by "Raw Converter" I'm assuming Cynthia is referring to ACR or LR - they are "raw converters", and as you know they both have the same noise reduction and sharpening functions built-in - to use or not to use as one prefers.

[CynthiaM]

There are choices:

(1) You can reduce noise and capture sharpen in LR and ACR; those programs will - under the hood - implement things in the right order upon rendering the image into Photoshop.

(2) If you prefer a 3rd party noise reduction program, as you don't want to sharpen the noise, you would zero-out the sharpening in the raw converter, render the image into Photoshop, first apply your noise reduction program, then do Capture Sharpening with PK Sharpener; then proceed with any other edits.

#2 is the scenario that I was unsure of particularly when an image has a lot of noise which is what I often have to deal with when shooting indoors with low light and high iso, particularly in travel images; something like a church.  Wasn't sure if I sure be disabling (which is what I mean by pulling to the left) the sharpening and noise sliders in ACR or LR and then I was not sure once brought into Photoshop, in what order noise reduction and sharpening should be applied.
Thank you for the clarification.

[petercook80]

Jeff may well answer this himself, but my two-cents worth from using this application with a large number of images is that it will suffice to select the nearest PKS preset to your output resolution. So for example, let us say when you resize WITHOUT resampling, you end-up with the print dimensions you want, but the output resolution happens to be 330 PPI. Then it is a toss-up whether you use the 300 or the 360 PKS preset. You will get slightly less sharpening effect with the former than with the latter. When you inspect the image at 100% you can decide to the extent feasible with a display (limited) whether you have enough, too little, too much and redo as needed, or dial down the opacity of the PKS pass-through layer if you find the effect too strong.

When I am compositing several images to one background page, as I often do (printing more than one image on a large sheet), everything needs to be at the same output PPI, so for these cases I do resample the individual images to 360 (same as my background page) using Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper (downsizing) or Bicubic Smoother (upsizing) as appropriate. Within the ranges I'm resampling and up to the 13*19 inches at which I print, I do not see a quality hit. I also know of one very knowledgeable photographer who does resample all images to 360 PPI in order to get a perfect match between the PKS preset and the output resolution of the file.

So bottom line, within certain limits you have lots of flexibility to approach it in different ways. Experiment a bit and see what you think is best adapted to your needs.

Thanks Mark, your response does go in hand with the PhotoKit teams response so I now know what I need to do.

As to other responses, I do no Noise/smoothing/sharpening in ACR (Photoshop CS) and import from ACR in 16bit and then run NeatImage Pro to remove noise. (this is all from Film Scans as I still work with Film)

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Mark, your response does go in hand with the PhotoKit teams response so I now know what I need to do.

As to other responses, I do no Noise/smoothing/sharpening in ACR (Photoshop CS) and import from ACR in 16bit and then run NeatImage Pro to remove noise. (this is all from Film Scans as I still work with Film)

Peter, when I do film scans, I have also been running Neat Image Pro for grain reduction. You may be interested to know that Noiseware Professional also does an excellent job of this. I have both, and while I haven't rigorously tested them side-by-side (something I may do in another context in the near future), if you don't have it you may wish to download an evaluation copy and try it.

[petercook80]

Peter, when I do film scans, I have also been running Neat Image Pro for grain reduction. You may be interested to know that Noiseware Professional also does an excellent job of this. I have both, and while I haven't rigorously tested them side-by-side (something I may do in another context in the near future), if you don't have it you may wish to download an evaluation copy and try it.

Hi Mark(DS), I did look at all the usual suspects when I purchased NeatImage but I ended going with NeatImage. I think Noiseware Pro would now have to be radically better for me to spend more money on another noise reduction plug-in now, and I suspect that any differences would be marginal. The next thing I will be spending money on will probably be PhotoKit Sharpener, which I should start trying out this week.

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Mark(DS), I did look at all the usual suspects when I purchased NeatImage but I ended going with NeatImage. I think Noiseware Pro would now have to be radically better for me to spend more money on another noise reduction plug-in now, and I suspect that any differences would be marginal. The next thing I will be spending money on will probably be PhotoKit Sharpener, which I should start trying out this week.

Yes, you've got your priorities right. PKS is an excellent application - I wouldn't be without it, and I could certainly live with either noise reduction application.

[bjanes]

Hi Mark(DS), I did look at all the usual suspects when I purchased NeatImage but I ended going with NeatImage. I think Noiseware Pro would now have to be radically better for me to spend more money on another noise reduction plug-in now, and I suspect that any differences would be marginal. The next thing I will be spending money on will probably be PhotoKit Sharpener, which I should start trying out this week.

PKSharpener is an excellent program, but is becoming somewhat redundant for users of ACR and Lightroom, since the capture sharpening abilities of PK are built into these two programs. ACR also has output sharpening, but is a bit awkard to use since the image size and resolution must be known in advance and the settings are non-intuitive. I don't use LR, but I understand that its output sharpening is more flexible.

Currently I use ACR for capture shapening so as to create a parametric master image. I then use PK for output sharpening and/or creative sharpening. Unless I have spent sime time tweaking the image, I often do not save it as a TIFF.

If heavy duty noise reduction is needed, I use Noiseware and then use PK for both capture and output sharpening. It would be nice if Adobe incorporated heavy duty NR into ACR, since NR is best done on raw data before white balance or other adjustments are made. Bibble Pro incorporates NoiseNinja, and Adobe should follow suit.

[Mark D Segal]

PKSharpener is an excellent program, but is becoming somewhat redundant for users of ACR and Lightroom, since the capture sharpening abilities of PK are built into these two programs. ACR also has output sharpening, but is a bit awkard to use since the image size and resolution must be known in advance and the settings are non-intuitive. I don't use LR, but I understand that its output sharpening is more flexible.

Currently I use ACR for capture shapening so as to create a parametric master image. I then use PK for output sharpening and/or creative sharpening. Unless I have spent sime time tweaking the image, I often do not save it as a TIFF.

If heavy duty noise reduction is needed, I use Noiseware and then use PK for both capture and output sharpening. It would be nice if Adobe incorporated heavy duty NR into ACR, since NR is best done on raw data before white balance or other adjustments are made. Bibble Pro incorporates NoiseNinja, and Adobe should follow suit.

Hi Bill, I do a lot of the same. Except I would say that PKS is not becoming redundant despite the Capture Sharpening in LR/ACR. One still needs the Output Sharpening if printing from CS4, which I shall continue to do until LR includes soft-proofing, and even then if there are other edits needed in CS4 because LR simply isn't intended to replace Photoshop. I also appreciate your mention of PK's "Creative Sharpeners". Not enough is said about these excellent features of the program.

If you don't use LR, I would really recommend that you download a demo copy and give it a whirl. It's addictive, despite having CS4 and ACR.