The important notion is that InFocus combines 2 operations, first a generic (or deblur) deconvolution, and second an optional sharpening operation. One should probably not try and solve the entire blur issue with only a single deconvolution (because you have no influence on the 'strength' of the effect), they are supposed to work in tandem (although I'd rather prefer more control over the deconvolution process). The optimal deconvolution radius setting seems to correspond reasonably well with the Sigma radius that my tools determines, maybe dialing in a tad smaller radius can help avoid the generation of excessive artifacts. It is not obvious which deconvolution method (generic/deblur) would be best. Deblur seems a bit more aggressive, it seems to be more than just a different PSF shape. Many unsatisfied reactions are caused by using too large a deconvolution radius. Assuming the two operations are executed in sequence, the sharpening radius to use should then be smaller than the deconvolution radius, unless one tries to achieve creative sharpening.
Thanks, interesting that.
I generally try 'Estimate' with a 2 radius, 0.3 softness and 0.2 artifact suppression first. It typically works pretty well on my landscapes, but if I think it is being too aggressive I will switch to Generic and play with the radius, leaving artifact suppression at 0.2. Radius usually ends up between 0.9 and 1.3. I virtually never use the built-in optional 'classic' sharpener, preferring to do that elsewhere. Maybe I should give it a second chance. Does it work as well/better than what you can typically achieve later in the workflow?
I think I like InFocus a little better than the FM trial I've been playing with.