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?
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.
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.
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 (https://www.google.com/search?q=topaz+labs+clarity+youtube) are some more).
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.
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.
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,
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
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/ (http://advantica.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/topaz-clarity/)