Clarity in LR 5.6 or ACR /Smart Object (Photoshop CC2014) vs Topaz Clarity

[Ellis Vener]

Has any one done a good systematic test of the Adobe versions of Clarity vs the Topaz Clarity product? While I use the Adobe version currently (and before that used both  Mac Holbert's original Mid-tone Contrast Enhancement action and the boost in Pixewl Genius PhotoKit Sharpenr 2.0) and wish to keep a sleek workflow, does the Topaz product bring enough to the table to justify its place in my digital tools quiver?

[mdijb]

I have compared Topaz clarity to LR and NIK Tonal contrast on multiple images and always come to the same conclusion.  The Topaz product always results in the shadows and dark in the image to get much darker, and even adjusting the many sliders they give does not seem to compensate for this loss of detail in the shadows--I have stopped trying and tend to use the NIK product much more--it has almost become my go to tonal contrast tool.

THere is another set of tools that does some of the same stuff that I am using more often now-- I really like the results.  Check out  Perceptool 3  at   http://georgedewolfe.com/perceptool.html

MDIJB

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Has any one done a good systematic test of the Adobe versions of Clarity vs the Topaz Clarity product? While I use the Adobe version currently (and before that used both  Mac Holbert's original Mid-tone Contrast Enhancement action and the boost in Pixewl Genius PhotoKit Sharpenr 2.0) and wish to keep a sleek workflow, does the Topaz product bring enough to the table to justify its place in my digital tools quiver?

Hi Ellis,

I'm not sure if a systematic test was published (there are some videos with comparisons), but I am very positively impressed with what Topaz Clarity can do with my images. In fact, it has become one of a few plug-ins that I now use routinely and when used with (user defined) presets it's also a huge time saver. Its effect can also be tweaked immensely, and that can take time, but with experience it will be done faster.

There are a couple of things at which Topaz Clarity excels, such as halo free edges (it does enhance the Mach band effect, similar to what our eyes do), and it uses what they call "Intellicolor" technology that avoids color shifts from changes in brightness and maintains natural colors. It also has great masking capability for local adjustments. The HSL controls work very well, although they are very sensitive so small amounts are often enough.

I can only recommend it, and assume that the next version will even be better if they implement some feature enhancements I've suggested to Topaz Labs.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. It can be called directly from Lightroom after installing the free Topaz Fusion Express plug-in, and it can be used directly with many PS plug-in aware applications. Installation instructions will tell how to do that with many different applications and platforms.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I have compared Topaz clarity to LR and NIK Tonal contrast on multiple images and always come to the same conclusion.  The Topaz product always results in the shadows and dark in the image to get much darker, and even adjusting the many sliders they give does not seem to compensate for this loss of detail in the shadows--I have stopped trying and tend to use the NIK product much more--it has almost become my go to tonal contrast tool.

Hi Michael,

Clarity enhances local contrast, and the Topaz version allows to specifically address various contrast ranges. TP Clarity does not specifically address shadow brightness, only its contrast. Maybe you need to use the "High Contrast" slider control with a bit of negative effect, if your shadows are already dark to begin with. You can also use the "Black Level" slider control to lighten shadow regions, but that will still attempt to preserve the darkest shadows (which may be what you experienced).

I think that the input images to Clarity need to be well processed for total tonal range, noise and Dust/etc., before enhancing local contrast, also because dark shadows remain to be dark (and may get darker when contrast is boosted) and it will see artifacts as detail that needs to be contrast 'enhanced'. TP clarity is not an exposure correction tool, it enhances (mostly) local contrast.

The other tools you mention address local and global exposure, which is something different, for which Topaz Labs also have a plugin tool, called "Adjust".

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Topaz has a blog post about the differences between some of their plugins and when to apply what in a workflow.

[Ellis Vener]

Thank you Bart.

[Redcrown]

I'm with Bart, an avid fan of Topaz Clarity. The concept of local contrast enhancement (LCE) is one of strong personal preference, so it's easy to argue that one tool is better than another. ACR clarity is a good tool, but it only has one control. Topaz Clarity has 7 controls, giving a much better chance to meet your personal preference.

I don't know if my tests would qualify as your definition of "systematic", but I've compared dozens of images, evaluating histograms, dropping sampler points all over and comparing values. Because LCE is highly image dependent, you can become quite confused. In one case, ACR may brighten a highlight more than Topaz. In another, the opposite may be true. Depends on that highlights relation to surrounding shadows or midtones.

However, I find that ACR Clarity tends to desaturate colors while Topaz maintains saturation levels very well. Yet ACR Clarity maintains hue better than Topaz, which can give 1 to 2 degree hue shifts. It's true that Topaz Clarity tends to lower shadows to a greater degree than ACR, sometimes crushing them. But use of the Black Level slider or negative values in High Contrast can easily control that.

With Topaz Clarity, I often generate 2 or 3 versions and use masks to blend them together. The main reason for this is to get different effects for sky and foreground in landscapes.

Download the trial and give it a try. If you want a quick comparison without the trial, here is a 67mb tif file with several layers showing different settings of ACR Clarity vs. Topaz Clarity. Load this into Photoshop and toggle the layers to compare differences. Look at histograms, drop some color sampler points and comapre values.

The layers are named with settings used. On the Topaz layers, the name (30/30/0/0/10/0/-10) represent the settings used for the seven sliders in the Dynamics and Tone Level controls.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/62166185/Clarity%20Tests.tif

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

However, I find that ACR Clarity tends to desaturate colors while Topaz maintains saturation levels very well. Yet ACR Clarity maintains hue better than Topaz, which can give 1 to 2 degree hue shifts.

Hi,

That's Intellicolor at work. It's more perceptually oriented than photometric. For instance, brightened bluish shadows may need a shift in the hue to retain a plausible look. The HSL controls allow to tweak some of that, should one wish to. The orange Lightness slider control of the HSL tool is also effective in adding a tan to Caucasian skin.

It's true that Topaz Clarity tends to lower shadows to a greater degree than ACR, sometimes crushing them. But use of the Black Level slider or negative values in High Contrast can easily control that.

Indeed, but then increasing contrast on dark tones will deepen the dark side of edges as well as brighten the light edge with a halo free transition. The High Contrast slider control makes it easy to adjust that image content dictated behavior. For outdoor scenes, one can also lighten the bluish shadows with the blue luminance/lightness of the HSL controls.

With Topaz Clarity, I often generate 2 or 3 versions and use masks to blend them together. The main reason for this is to get different effects for sky and foreground in landscapes.

That's why I suggested them to add a feature enhancement with an Apply button, which would allow multiple applications of different masked settings during the same run. That would help e.g. Lightroom, where Photoshop has the added benefit of adjustable opacity layers.

Cheers,
Bart

[Tim Lookingbill]

Wow! A discussion on Clarity rendering and not one contributor posts a before and after sample to back up all their words?

ALL HAIL THE WORD!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Wow! A discussion on Clarity rendering and not one contributor posts a before and after sample to back up all their words?

Hi Tim,

Apparently you didn't follow any of the links that were provided (here are some more). There are also videos/tutorials/webinars on the TopazLabs website, where you can see the tool in action, or subscribe for webinars where a free copy may be raffled.

Besides, a tool as powerful as Topaz Clarity can be made to change the local contrast in so many ways that it makes it a very personal preference of how any image will or can be changed (for the better or for the worse, depending on how one defines that).

Also, because it reacts on local contrast, the effect will differ by image. Therefore, one of the great features (besides the great masking functionality and halo free adjustments) is that the image preview updates almost instantly as one changes the settings, making it a very creative process, where one looks at the image as one develops it without looking at the controls.

To humor you, I'll repeat an example (one of a gazillion possible renderings) I posted a year and a half ago, a few days after Clarity was initially released. It's actually more revealing to see it in action (instead of a before/after shot), which requires video:

Original rendering

Original rendering + Topaz Clarity

One can make the skies more dramatic, less dramatic, change the saturation of the green in the waves, etc., etc., it is just one possible combination of settings. A tool like the Lightroom/ACR version of Clarity is simple, use more or less mid-tone contrast, but the level of control pales in comparison to how things are implemented in Topaz Labs' version. That also means that it comes with a learning curve, unless one is satisfied with the presets that come with the plugin.

Cheers,
Bart

[mdijb]

From BART

Clarity enhances local contrast, and the Topaz version allows to specifically address various contrast ranges. TP Clarity does not specifically address shadow brightness, only its contrast. Maybe you need to use the "High Contrast" slider control with a bit of negative effect, if your shadows are already dark to begin with. You can also use the "Black Level" slider control to lighten shadow regions, but that will still attempt to preserve the darkest shadows (which may be what you experienced).


I have tried using these sliders but cannot report much luck.

MDIJB

[Rand47]

+1 for Topaz Clarity.   It is the one plug-in I will almost always at least try after I've made my best effort in LR.  Very often it will exceed my best efforts.  I have even used it on a virtual copy, then tried to reverse engineer what it has done by tweaking the original w/ LR's controls to attempt a match (and thereby learn!), but have yet to achieve parity. 

Rand

[Tim Lookingbill]

Hi Tim,

Apparently you didn't follow any of the links that were provided (here are some more).

Hi Bart, I did view those videos.

You'll have to excuse my lack of clarity in my first response where I meant to indicate contributor's words to be backed up by contributor's own images with hopefully info showing the amount of work required to get the better results so we know whether it's worth our time to just use our current software (ACR/LR) vs more software (Topaz).

I like doing everything in the Raw format and saving to xmp because I've got thousands of images to process and I don't like the idea of managing, organizing, backing up multiple copies in both Raw and pixel based tiff format.

But I appreciate your sample you've posted which helps me decide I don't need Topaz even though it kind of gives better results. Hard to tell because I have spent quite a lot of time discovering the myriad of ways I can render a Raw file in ACR/LR all of which satisfy my vision of the scene as I remember but also notice I can get it to look better and better depending on the dynamic range of the image to the point any one would deliver a good looking print.

The concern I have about "easy push button" automation of image rendering preset approaches is that it tends to make images look the same as other photographers who uses the same push button, preset process. Fishing around for the "look" in Raw is akin to sculpting clay where there is a bit of an organic element imbued into the image with all its idiosyncrasies intact.

If I had to go into Photoshop or use another plugin after initial rendering in Raw without knowing whether I could improve the image, my whole train of thought and approach would be interrupted having to become familiar with another way of "fishing" around but with presets. I would need to know going in if the improvements were worth all that extra work which is very hard to determine on an image by image basis.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I like doing everything in the Raw format and saving to xmp because I've got thousands of images to process and I don't like the idea of managing, organizing, backing up multiple copies in both Raw and pixel based tiff format.

Hi Tim,

I understand, and personally would also prefer to do all the work in a single application, for workflow convenience. However, there is no single application that satisfies all my requirements. So, by limiting myself to what can be done in a given application, also limits my creativity, to what that application can satisfy.

Topaz Labs Clarity has offered me a way to improve my images in a very helpful way, it's faster, and as a result I explore more ways of getting my creative intent across. I think that it produces subjectively 'better' results faster.

The concern I have about "easy push button" automation of image rendering preset approaches is that it tends to make images look the same as other photographers who uses the same push button, preset process. Fishing around for the "look" in Raw is akin to sculpting clay where there is a bit of an organic element imbued into the image with all its idiosyncrasies intact.

I'm also not someone who uses presets and leave it at that. That would indeed produce out-of-the-box predictable results, although TL Clarity interacts with image content, so it will always produce somewhat different results. I start my postprocessing with a vision I want to get across, developing an image (a flat plane abstraction) devoid of distractions like blur/noise/what-have-you, unless they contribute, and then enhance the perceived quality of light that models the subject, makes it almost tangible and 3D. Tonemapping is the key, IMHO, and TL Clarity allows to achieve some of that in a very natural artifact free way by adjusting local contrast. It's the logical next step after first getting overall tonality, shadows/highlights/brightness correct.

If I had to go into Photoshop or use another plugin after initial rendering in Raw without knowing whether I could improve the image, my whole train of thought and approach would be interrupted having to become familiar with another way of "fishing" around but with presets. I would need to know going in if the improvements were worth all that extra work which is very hard to determine on an image by image basis.

I think there is only one way of getting a good impression, and that is by trying it yourself. They have a free trial license model, but you can even try it without license if you don't save the results and only use the almost full display sized preview to get an impression. The plugin is fully functional and doesn't time out, only for saving the result a license is required. If purchased within the discount coupon period (which just expired) the already decent price is even more attractive, especially in the light of their sofar free update and upgrade policy. I've only purchased the various plugins that make my life easier once, upgrades to new enhanced version releases have been free. Good value for money.

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My feeling is that even if Topaz & Co offer better features I prefer to use the parametric workflow of Lightroom. Also, I feel that demosaic may be the weakest part of Lightroom, other programs may give a better starting point.

Best regards
Erik

Has any one done a good systematic test of the Adobe versions of Clarity vs the Topaz Clarity product? While I use the Adobe version currently (and before that used both  Mac Holbert's original Mid-tone Contrast Enhancement action and the boost in Pixewl Genius PhotoKit Sharpenr 2.0) and wish to keep a sleek workflow, does the Topaz product bring enough to the table to justify its place in my digital tools quiver?

[Fine_Art]

Hi,

My feeling is that even if Topaz & Co offer better features I prefer to use the parametric workflow of Lightroom. Also, I feel that demosaic may be the weakest part of Lightroom, other programs may give a better starting point.

Best regards
Erik

Please try the program that gives the best results on your favorite images. Maybe an efficient process is priority for the average shot, when you are working on your best, use the best, even if it takes more time.

[LesPalenik]

Here is a Before and After example of an old JPG picture processed by one click Topaz Clarity plugin using the Color and Contrast Boost preset (plus a slight blue saturation and darkening). As Bart says, the lesser known features of Topaz Clarity are halo-free edges and a low color distortion when boosting the contrast and colors.

Although I always try to make parametric changes first in LR, inclusion of the tonal and color adjustments in the same editing tool comes sometimes handy for quick and dirty image fixes.

I have more examples and a brief product review on my blog:
http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/topaz-clarity/

[donbga]

Here is a Before and After example of an old JPG picture processed by one click Topaz Clarity plugin using the Color and Contrast Boost preset (plus a slight blue saturation and darkening). As Bart says, the lesser known features of Topaz Clarity are halo-free edges and a low color distortion when boosting the contrast and colors.

Although I always try to make parametric changes first in LR, inclusion of the tonal and color adjustments in the same editing tool comes sometimes handy for quick and dirty image fixes.

I have more examples and a brief product review on my blog:
http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/topaz-clarity/

I use all of the Clarity tools mentioned here except for the Photo kit plugin, all the latest versions. IME, one tool doesn't always satisfy though I think I can safely say for me, in all cases least adjustments give the best result.

Thanks for the link.

Don Bryant