Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Capture One Q&A => Topic started by: James R on December 19, 2015, 09:04:36 pm
-
I've used Pixel Genius for years; however, I would like to incorporate CO9's sharpening but I just don't have a feel for the tool. I have not seen any tips on using this tool or posts championing its quality. So, any advise or tips would be appreciated.
-
I've used Pixel Genius for years; however, I would like to incorporate CO9's sharpening but I just don't have a feel for the tool. I have not seen any tips on using this tool or posts championing its quality. So, any advise or tips would be appreciated.
Hi James,
Capture One is first and foremost a Raw converter. Its post-processing functionality is constantly being improved further, so Sharpening may also follow. It's not bad as it is (with sharpness fall-off correction and local sharpening adjustment layers), but it can be better if real deconvolution sharpening was used for Capture sharpening, and different techniques for Creative/Output sharpening.
What the Pixel Genius software does, is more akin to Creative sharpening and Output sharpening. It offers a functionality more aimed at postprocessing. There are other/better solutions than Capture One can (currently) offer. My personal preference is Topaz Labs Detail, which works as a Plugin that can be used with almost all Photoshop plugin aware photoeditors. But it does much more than just sharpen ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
My understanding is that CO "knows" different sensors and applies a default sharpening intended to replace the sharpness lost in the image capture. So it's taking into account the RGB pattern of the sensor, its AA filter (or not), and probably magic sauce, to get the "right" sharpness. If you add in lens correction for profiled lenses, it will fix the loss of sharpness from the lens, too. So classic 'capture sharpening' should be covered - if the image was sharp when it was taken, CO will recover all of that sharpness.
'Creative sharpening' seems OK enough in CO, to me. It doesn't seem to be as good as Lightroom/Photoshop at salvaging somewhat out of focus images, but I think that's asking a bit much. If it wasn't sharp when it was taken, that's mostly on the photographer. To bring a little attention to eyes, or other important image points, CO seems to cover the bases.
The 'output sharpening' end of the chain is CO's weakest point, IMHO. And it's pretty weak with just a single slider for "sharpening." But Jeff Schewe (sharpening guru and Adobe alpha/beta tester) doesn't think Lightroom's output sharpening is all it should be either - so this must be a tough area to get right.
And I'm not at all sure that printing is very high on PO's development roadmap for CO. Maybe most CO users print from dedicated RIP software?
-
My understanding is that CO "knows" different sensors and applies a default sharpening intended to replace the sharpness lost in the image capture.
Hi Bob,
While there are defaults, they can be set to anything else (and be made a new default).
I have mine set to get a good idea of the degree of focus/DOF, but I disable sharpening (with a checkbox) in the output recipe to files. I then use Focusmagic for Capture sharpening and Topaz Detail for Creative 'sharpening' and Output sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks for the replies. I've use PG for years, maybe I'll check out Topaz and Focus Magic.
-
Hi,
In general I would agree with Bart quite a bit. Personally I take a different approach and use Lightroom for my routine processing. But, sometimes I want a processing workflow with less artefacts. In that case I would switch of sharpening in Lightroom and use a tool like FocusMagic for sharpening the image. Actually, Lightroom may not be the best converter to this as I feel it may induce some unnecessary artefacts in raw conversion.
For normal size prints, like A2, I would say Lightroom works just fine and Capture One does too, I am pretty sure!
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
In general I would agree with Bart quite a bit. Personally I take a different approach and use Lightroom for my routine processing. But, sometimes I want a processing workflow with less artefacts. In that case I would switch of sharpening in Lightroom and use a tool like FocusMagic for sharpening the image. Actually, Lightroom may not be the best converter to this as I feel it may induce some unnecessary artefacts in raw conversion.
For normal size prints, like A2, I would say Lightroom works just fine and Capture One does too, I am pretty sure!
Best regards
Erik
For website or small prints, I'm fine with the built in sharpening. I'm more concerned with larger prints. I just finished looking at some plug-ins. It seems there is an emphasis on dealing with out-of-focus images, which I tend to discard. FocalBlade2 and Focal Magic looked interesting. I'll probably just continue using Pixel Genius.
-
It was Bart that clued me into the power of Focus Magic, however with all processing from or LR, I always apply some sharpening, then work the files with either Topaz In Focus or Focus Magic.
I have always felt that raw conversion without some sharpening leaves a less than acceptable result, as too much detail is lost in the bayer pattern conversion as 2 out 3 colors are being guessed for each pixel. Just what seems to work best for me. If I try to pull back sharpening after the raw conversion I feel it's too great a delta. Just what works for me.
However with Focus Magic I find I definitively don't need as much sharpening during the raw conversion. Focus Magic is well worth the cost.
For web work, I have an action that scales down the image that does a good enough job, as I feel there are too many variable out on the web anyway that can contribute to how an image is viewed that I can't control.
Paul C
-
Hi James,
Capture One is first and foremost a Raw converter. Its post-processing functionality is constantly being improved further, so Sharpening may also follow. It's not bad as it is (with sharpness fall-off correction and local sharpening adjustment layers), but it can be better if real deconvolution sharpening was used for Capture sharpening, and different techniques for Creative/Output sharpening.
What the Pixel Genius software does, is more akin to Creative sharpening and Output sharpening. It offers a functionality more aimed at postprocessing. There are other/better solutions than Capture One can (currently) offer. My personal preference is Topaz Labs Detail, which works as a Plugin that can be used with almost all Photoshop plugin aware photoeditors. But it does much more than just sharpen ...
Cheers,
Bart
Bart
Would running a imagemagick batch job (after raw conversion) also be possible?
Although I have the impression that imagemagick has "problems" with tiff and non sRGB color spaces.
Alain
-
Bart
Would running a imagemagick batch job (after raw conversion) also be possible?
Hi Alain,
Yes, one can point the Basic output recipe of C1 to "Open with" an application that takes an input filename as parameter.
Although I have the impression that imagemagick has "problems" with tiff and non sRGB color spaces.
Correct, that's also my experience. I just tried it again, and C1P V9 is no exception. There must be some incompatibility between the TIFF variant written by C1, and the TIFF format expected by ImageMagick. I always have to load and save in Photoshop before the TIFF is handled well in ImageMagick. Have to look into that one day with the ImageMagick folks.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Alain,
Yes, one can point the Basic output recipe of C1 to "Open with" an application that takes an input filename as parameter.
Correct, that's also my experience. I just tried it again, and C1P V9 is no exception. There must be some incompatibility between the TIFF variant written by C1, and the TIFF format expected by ImageMagick. I always have to load and save in Photoshop before the TIFF is handled well in ImageMagick. Have to look into that one day with the ImageMagick folks.
Cheers,
Bart
Thanks
-
I've spent sometime looking at the options and have now decided to give FocalBlade 2 a try. Hopefully, it isn't too much of a resource hog. Never thought about batch sharpening, but, when appropriate, I'll give it a try.
Thanks again to all.
-
Hi Bob,
While there are defaults, they can be set to anything else (and be made a new default).
I have mine set to get a good idea of the degree of focus/DOF, but I disable sharpening (with a checkbox) in the output recipe to files. I then use Focusmagic for Capture sharpening and Topaz Detail for Creative 'sharpening' and Output sharpening.
To add a small but hopefully useful tip:
One can hand off output from Capture One, e.g. a TIFF, to a TopazLabs plugin directly from Capture One without the need for an additional photo-editor. This is done by specifying in the output recipe that the file must be opened with "Fusion Express 2". Here (http://discuss.topazlabs.com/t/using-topaz-filters-in-capture-one-pro-v8-x/5739) is a Post in the Topaz forums with a link to a document that has some more details.
Sending the output off to e.g. Topaz Detail, will allow to use its "Deblur" control for Deconvolution Capture sharpening, and the awesome other functionality to really make detail 'pop' (or not pop, e.g. in smooth sky) in your image.
This looks really useful for e.g. web-publishing, with the improved rescaling of C1 Pro Version 9 a near perfect downsampling is possible, sharpening can be disabled in the output recipe, and sharpening and final detail work at the actual output size can be done immediately with Topaz Detail. Sending multiple files to Fusion Express 2, will open multiple instances of FE2.
Cheers,
Bart
-
To add a small but hopefully useful tip:
One can hand off output from Capture One, e.g. a TIFF, to a TopazLabs plugin directly from Capture One without the need for an additional photo-editor. This is done by specifying in the output recipe that the file must be opened with "Fusion Express 2". Here (http://discuss.topazlabs.com/t/using-topaz-filters-in-capture-one-pro-v8-x/5739) is a Post in the Topaz forums with a link to a document that has some more details.
Sending the output off to e.g. Topaz Detail, will allow to use its "Deblur" control for Deconvolution Capture sharpening, and the awesome other functionality to really make detail 'pop' (or not pop, e.g. in smooth sky) in your image.
This looks really useful for e.g. web-publishing, with the improved rescaling of C1 Pro Version 9 a near perfect downsampling is possible, sharpening can be disabled in the output recipe, and sharpening and final detail work at the actual output size can be done immediately with Topaz Detail. Sending multiple files to Fusion Express 2, will open multiple instances of FE2.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart, thanks for this. Is your preference to use Topaz detail on an output TIFF/jpeg rather than use the "edit with" opyion and have the sharpened file reimported to CO (eg catalogue)? Is this because you are using it as "output sharpening" after all other adjustments have been done? Do you do earlier external sharpening eg Focus Magic via the "edit in" route to bring you back to CO?
-
Hi Bart, thanks for this. Is your preference to use Topaz detail on an output TIFF/jpeg rather than use the "edit with" opyion and have the sharpened file reimported to CO (eg catalogue)?
Hi Brandon,
No particular preference, other than that I rarely re-import TIFFs in C1. When I produce output I'm targeting for a specific purpose, and there is no need to re-open in C1, and when I'm still preparing for output, then I'm working on the Raw conversion data itself for as long as possible.
That's the only reason I only mentioned the output recipe.
Is this because you are using it as "output sharpening" after all other adjustments have been done?
Yes, although I'd prefer if I could do the Capture Sharpening in C1 itself. Currently I cannot judge the sharpening effect on rescaled output with a preview, so I have to postpone it till I'm done with C1 processing.
Do you do earlier external sharpening eg Focus Magic via the "edit in" route to bring you back to CO?
No, I prefer to only sharpen at the final output size (sharpening and then downsampling can cause artifacts), and when I output full size, there is no real need to do it in C1 when better quality is available outside. Creative 'sharpening' is (in my book) not real sharpening , it's more detail enhancement, and that is also better done with Detail than within C1, IMHO.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Less than ideal capture sharpening (getting back the original sharpness lost from the AtoD conversion and the sensor's color pixel array) and creative sharpening (as Bart said, enhancements to specific areas of the image) may be a real downside of CO for me.
Every image needs capture sharpening, by definition. And any image being output to anywhere other than the web at web sizes, especially to be printed, needs output sharpening.
All these 16-bit TIFFs, if output for sharpening by another program, are a pain from a storage size and a management point of view.
I was hoping CO's default capture sharpening, created by PO specifically for each support camera and lens combination, would do what is needed.
Creative sharpening, unless done to a great extent, shouldn't need the fancier deconvolution sharpening, I would think.
CO's output sharpener appears rather crude with only an amount slider to adjust. My hope here is that whatever it does would be good enough for smaller prints; I rarely print over 11x17. The occasional larger print would likely benefit from a dedicated sharpening tool regardless of the RAW converter/adjustment program.
It is much better for me to stay in a RAW workflow all the way to output, if at all possible. Lightroom seems to do that well. But perhaps CO can't?
-
Bumping this topic.
Has the Capture one sharpening improved with the latest version release?
Are you guys still recommending focus magic and topaz detail as before?
I'm really hoping the sharpening capabilities of capture one have finally incorporated deconvolution.
-
I can't say as I just came on board with CO at 9.2. But I'll be honest, I find CO's sharpening tools to be perfectly adequate especially since I do not print larger than 13x19. With a very typical sharpening work flow my images seem perfectly sharp and not over sharp to me.
There is certainly the possibility that I am a weak critic of my own prints. There is also the possibility that I misunderstand output sharpening, or at least not knowing what is available since I have not used PS for this purpose or other plug ins, even though I do own the Nik collection.
In CO9.2 you have one slider for ouput sharpening and it is a simple number, a percentage I believe. I print almost entirely on glossy papers and I leave it at 25 or less.
I may be exposing my ignorance here but isn't output sharpening always a black box in which the quality, or lack thereof, can only be seen in the print? In other words, no soft proof for output sharpening?
-
Bumping this topic.
Has the Capture one sharpening improved with the latest version release?
Hi,
No differences with previous versions, although the resampling quality has dramatically improved with version 9.x.
Are you guys still recommending focus magic and topaz detail as before?
I do, can't speak for others.
I'm really hoping the sharpening capabilities of capture one have finally incorporated deconvolution.
It's the highest on my personal wishlist, but it depends also on how it's implemented.
The current sharpening is not bad, and given (aliased) non-AA filtered input (like from Medium Format cameras), there is traditionally not that much one can safely do, unless the image is diffraction blurred. But with denser sampling sensors (smaller sensel pitch), and either AA-filtered sensors or multiple step exposures, the restoration capabilities are sorely missed.
Another thing missing, IMHO, is a sharpening preview for downsampled or upsampled output/print files. The print sharpening is (at best) experimental, but without preview, so multiple actual prints must be made to see if the (post resizing ?) sharpening is enough or too much.
For a better output preview, there should also be a more seamless zooming. Although display and actual print can have vastly different resolutions, it should be possible to simply zoom on display to the exact same size as the printed output (a zoom ratio of display_PPI / output_PPI). That will at least take some of the guesswork out of the equation.
I think that the Capture One engineers would be wise to implement such a solution soon, because there will be new contenders that might otherwise steal the show. Iridient's Raw Developer is praised for its Richardson-Lucy deconvolution and some other mixed methods, but it's a Mac OS application and not yet available for Windows 10 (although announced it will be). RawTherapee has Richardson-Lucy deconvolution that works well, and I'm looking forward to what Affinity Photo will offer when its Windows version comes out (coming month?). OnOne is also coming with a new Raw converter, and Photo Ninja's results are described as very detailed and sharp, but that's probably more due to their sharpening than to the Raw conversion as well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
No differences with previous versions, although the resampling quality has dramatically improved with version 9.x.
I do, can't speak for others.
It's the highest on my personal wishlist, but it depends also on how it's implemented.
The current sharpening is not bad, and given (aliased) non-AA filtered input (like from Medium Format cameras), there is traditionally not that much one can safely do, unless the image is diffraction blurred. But with denser sampling sensors (smaller sensel pitch), and either AA-filtered sensors or multiple step exposures, the restoration capabilities are sorely missed.
Another thing missing, IMHO, is a sharpening preview for downsampled or upsampled output/print files. The print sharpening is (at best) experimental, but without preview, so multiple actual prints must be made to see if the (post resizing ?) sharpening is enough or too much.
For a better output preview, there should also be a more seamless zooming. Although display and actual print can have vastly different resolutions, it should be possible to simply zoom on display to the exact same size as the printed output (a zoom ratio of display_PPI / output_PPI). That will at least take some of the guesswork out of the equation.
I think that the Capture One engineers would be wise to implement such a solution soon, because there will be new contenders that might otherwise steal the show. Iridient's Raw Developer is praised for its Richardson-Lucy deconvolution and some other mixed methods, but it's a Mac OS application and not yet available for Windows 10 (although announced it will be). RawTherapee has Richardson-Lucy deconvolution that works well, and I'm looking forward to what Affinity Photo will offer when its Windows version comes out (coming month?). OnOne is also coming with a new Raw converter, and Photo Ninja's results are described as very detailed and sharp, but that's probably more due to their sharpening than to the Raw conversion as well.
Cheers,
Bart
Thank you very very much.
on a tangent, I really only shoot non-AA equipped cameras (Ricoh GR, D810, Sigma Merrill series). That said, I'm curious about you comment "non-AA filtered input (like from Medium Format cameras), there is traditionally not that much one can safely do." Do you mean this mathematically (image needs to be blurred by AA or motion or defraction) to benefit from deconvolution or any form of sharpening in general?
-
Hi,
Aliasing occurs when the lens provides detail the sensor cannot resolve. In this case the sensor will produce fake detail. Bayer sensors will have different sampling points for blue, red and green so these artefacts will be colorful. Sensors like Foevon will also create artefacts, but these will be monochrome as all colours share the same sampling points and density. So, Foevon will also induce artefacts, it is just that it is not very obvious.
The only solution to this problem is increase the resolution of the sensor beyond the resolution of the lens. A more proper way to say the same thing would be to reduce MTF at the Nyquist limit to reasonably small values. In well designed systems a Low Pass (LP) filter does that job. In optical systems that is called an optical low pass filter (OLP). OLP filters are expensive and probably even more expensive in large sizes. Mamiya ZD had an optional OLP filter, at a cost of around 3000 $US. An OLP filter will affect all frequencies, so an OLP filtered image will need more sharpening.
Stopping down to small apertures will act as a low pass filter, due to diffraction, but diffraction will probably degrade sharpness more than a properly designed OLP filter.
The best solution is really to reduce pixel size. With the best lenses we have today, like the Otus lenses from Zeiss, we probably need something like 2.5 micron pixels to eliminate aliasing.
Check this example, shot on a 3.8 micron pitch camera:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_na.png)
The strains of the feather are quite credible. Note that the strains are not continuous. That essentially is an indisputable indication that some detail is fake, but it is hard to tell real or fake detail apart.
This image was shot on a 6.8 micron pitch sensor, and enlarged to the same size than the previous one.
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Aliasing2/feather_a_large.png)
Note that the feather shows a cross hatch pattern. That pattern is obviously a sampling artefact.
Best regards
Erik
Ps. I have been told that these images are school book examples of aliasing, but I have also gotten some nearly hateful comments. I hope that some folks on LuLa have grown up to accept that there are folks on the net who don't share their views and know a few things they don't.
Thank you very very much.
on a tangent, I really only shoot non-AA equipped cameras (Ricoh GR, D810, Sigma Merrill series). That said, I'm curious about you comment "non-AA filtered input (like from Medium Format cameras), there is traditionally not that much one can safely do." Do you mean this mathematically (image needs to be blurred by AA or motion or defraction) to benefit from deconvolution or any form of sharpening in general?
-
Thank you very very much.
on a tangent, I really only shoot non-AA equipped cameras (Ricoh GR, D810, Sigma Merrill series). That said, I'm curious about you comment "non-AA filtered input (like from Medium Format cameras), there is traditionally not that much one can safely do." Do you mean this mathematically (image needs to be blurred by AA or motion or defraction) to benefit from deconvolution or any form of sharpening in general?
Yes, (from a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) point of view) ideally we start with a properly low-pass filtered image, but that's easier said than done. Our sensels are still relatively large (so projected detail will be smaller, too small to resolve, thus leading to aliasing), and for very high resolution or large output we often need to magnify enough to easily see the limitations/artifacts. For lower resolution output (most displays), and smaller output sizes, we can often down-sample, or physically minimize, enough to hide some of the artifacts.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Having followed this thread as a relative beginner, I have a couple of more mundane questions, if I may
I use Capture One 9, and do not have PS on my system. Nor do I have LR except v 5 on one of my computers. What do you use as a host for Focus Magic? I considered installing PhotoLine for that purpose but it seems a complicated work flow.
How do you use Focus Magic for pre-sharpening? Do you sharpen with it before "ingesting" it into CO?
I have set up Fusion Express for access from CO. What is the difference between Topaz Infocus and Detail, and why do you prefer the later.
Lots to learn at this basic level.
Thanks
F.
-
I would also like to piggy-back a question here. I did not see much mention of Nik Sharper Pro 3. Of course it is a bit old, but it is free, it was well reviewed when it came out, it allows local sharpening as well as layers and is designed specifically designed for output sharpening.
I have it but have not used it.
Just wondering how it rates as a step in the CO output process........given the fact that is completely FREE?
-
Having followed this thread as a relative beginner, I have a couple of more mundane questions, if I may
I use Capture One 9, and do not have PS on my system. Nor do I have LR except v 5 on one of my computers. What do you use as a host for Focus Magic? I considered installing PhotoLine for that purpose but it seems a complicated work flow.
Hi Frank,
FocusMagic is basically a Photoshop type of plugin, so it needs a host program that can use the .8bf file extension plugins. Besides Photoshop, Photoline indeed also supports the FocusMagic plugin.
How do you use Focus Magic for pre-sharpening? Do you sharpen with it before "ingesting" it into CO?
FocusMagic is primarily intended as a Capture Sharpening tool, so it works best on unsharpened input, usually TIFFs. Capture One is basically a Raw converter that outputs TIFFs and JPEGs. It is possible to send the (TIFF) output to an external program for further editing (if CO sharpening is disabled, amount 0), but it cannot be sent to FocusMagic without a host application to run that. After editing/FocusMagic sharpening, the result can be re-opened into CO if one wishes so, but that's not how I use CO.
I have set up Fusion Express for access from CO.
Yes, that will function as a host for accessing the Topaz Plugins that are not (yet) stand-alone applications.
What is the difference between Topaz Infocus and Detail, and why do you prefer the later.
Topaz InFocus has only one purpose, Capture Sharpening of blurred input. You could consider it as the single Topaz Detail slider (also does Deconvolution sharpening), but on steroids.
Topaz Detail takes that sharpened output another step further towards output. It can be considered as a Creative Sharpening tool, and an Output Sharpening tool.
I use both FocusMagic or InFocus for Capture sharpening, but FocusMagic more often because it's less likely to create sharpening artifacts. Those artifacts can be avoided by InFocus, but that takes a lot more work. Sometimes Infocus does a better sharpening job, but that's not too often.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thank you. Since you said you sharpen at the end of your workflow, it would seem you use Focus Magic after CO, not before, and then use Detail after that. I tried Detail and it seems very useful.
F.
-
Thank you. Since you said you sharpen at the end of your workflow, it would seem you use Focus Magic after CO, not before, and then use Detail after that. I tried Detail and it seems very useful.
Yes, from CO, I export my Raw converted TIFFs without sharpening (select that option in the output recipe), and the first thing I do in Photoshop is make a sharpening layer on which FocusMagic is applied, then do other processing such as Clarity, then apply Detail.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks again. I can see how the process is aimed at printing in Photoshop at the end (or some other use). Have been trying to avoid using Photoshop, but may have to if I want to use Focus Magic and use Photo Shops soft proofing capacities at the same time.
But one link in the chain at a time. Thanks for your response about sharpening.
F.
-
FocusMagic is primarily intended as a Capture Sharpening tool, so it works best on unsharpened input, usually TIFFs. Capture One is basically a Raw converter that outputs TIFFs and JPEGs. It is possible to send the (TIFF) output to an external program for further editing (if CO sharpening is disabled, amount 0), but it cannot be sent to FocusMagic without a host application to run that. After editing/FocusMagic sharpening, the result can be re-opened into CO if one wishes so, but that's not how I use CO.
Topaz InFocus has only one purpose, Capture Sharpening of blurred input. You could consider it as the single Topaz Detail slider (also does Deconvolution sharpening), but on steroids.
Topaz Detail takes that sharpened output another step further towards output. It can be considered as a Creative Sharpening tool, and an Output Sharpening tool.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart is it possible and useful to make the output application ("photoline or other or even imagemagick") open, do the capture sharpening with default settings, save and close?
In other words to replace the CO capture sharpening with an automatic sharpening (of course for one camera).
Is it worthwhile for a D810 which has no AA filter?
Alain
-
Bart is it possible and useful to make the output application ("photoline or other or even imagemagick") open, do the capture sharpening with default settings, save and close?
In other words to replace the CO capture sharpening with an automatic sharpening (of course for one camera).
Capture One can be setup to execute an application, such as Photoline, that acts as a host for Photoshop Plugins. I'm not aware of Photoline having a command line interface option that would allow to only run a single filter and then save, but maybe their forum has addressed such a functionality in the past?
There seems to be a xx (http://dmmd.net/main_wp/photoshop/)Photoshop (Plugin) host application, but I have no idea if that works as suggested for FocusMagic.
Alternatively you could try running a droplet that's based on a Photoshop action that runs FocusMagic. Haven't tried it myself.
ImageMagick can be run through a Batchfile that's called from CO, but I don't think it runs Photoshop plugins, so you'd have to program something yourself with an ImageMagick commands script.
And there is always an option to use Topaz InFocus which is accessible through its free host program, and can be called by CO.
Is it worthwhile for a D810 which has no AA filter?
In general, discretely sampled images that have not been pre-filtered, can cause all sorts of issues when sharpening is applied. A lot depends on image content. It would also depend on the lens used, and the settings (aperture, defocus).
Cheers,
Bart
-
By using PhotoLine as a dummy application, as one would use Focus Express, I find that with Edit with in C1, and then PhotoLine, then Filters, and then Focus Magic as a plugin; and if I make adjustments, let Focus Magic do its thing, then save the file, the resulting edited Tif shows up in my C1 catalogue. Since I can do the same for Topaz Detail (etc) after that, iit seems that I can so all my operations within C1 and its catalogue. I think. If this is true, having sharpened already, perhaps I don't need to check the no sharpening box in the process recipe when I process the Tiff. (or a JPEG output).
F.
-
For sharpening you might try Piccure+ for batching or Franzis's Sharpen for individual images. I like the results but make your own decisions.
10/7/16 Sharpen has just been updated.
-
Topaz Detail takes that sharpened output another step further towards output. It can be considered as a Creative Sharpening tool, and an Output Sharpening tool.
Bart,
After using LR for a number of years I have developed a renewed interest in Capture One. I have 9.3 and Focus Magic already which I can use in Photoshop. I downloaded the trial of Topaz Detail and am impressed after an initial look. My question: how do you determine how much sharpening to use for output sharpening? Do you resize the image first (I have a Canon ipf6300 which does better with 600 PPI input)? I am used to just selecting sharpen for print in LR and getting (fairly) good results, looking for some general guidelines on the use of Topaz Detail.
Thanks.
-
Thank you very much for the tip. Will be vey useful.
-
Hi,
As long as the lens outresolves the sensor, or to be more correct, has significant MTF at Nyquist the sampling will create artefacts, that is fake detail.
One way to see it, the high frequency detail that the sensor cannot be resolved will be shown as lower frequency artefacts. For some reason, these artefacts are not very obvious as long as they are monochrome.
The OLP filter is intended to reduce fine detail contrast at the pixel level to say 15%, that is not enough to suppress aliasing fully, but it reduces colour aliasing significantly.
Bart has some fine sense of sharpening. Personally, I have found that exporting with no sharpening and applying FocusMagic at default settings gives near optimal sharpening.
CO delivers cleaner image from demosaic than Lightroom, so that can be an advantage.
Sharpening should not be overdone...
Best regards
Erik
Thank you very very much.
on a tangent, I really only shoot non-AA equipped cameras (Ricoh GR, D810, Sigma Merrill series). That said, I'm curious about you comment "non-AA filtered input (like from Medium Format cameras), there is traditionally not that much one can safely do." Do you mean this mathematically (image needs to be blurred by AA or motion or defraction) to benefit from deconvolution or any form of sharpening in general?
-
Bart,
After using LR for a number of years I have developed a renewed interest in Capture One. I have 9.3 and Focus Magic already which I can use in Photoshop. I downloaded the trial of Topaz Detail and am impressed after an initial look. My question: how do you determine how much sharpening to use for output sharpening?
Hi John,
Sorry for not answering sooner, this message got swamped by other work.
It's difficult to say 'how much' sharpening to use, but it helps to start with a 'proper' amount. Proper meaning that no visible artifacts should be introduced. Then, depending out output conditions, one can add a bit more if it won't hurt the image at the intended viewing distance.
The difficulty with Topaz Detail is, that there are hardly any artifacts, so it's more up to the subject matter and taste of the photographer. One would e.g. usually not over-emphasize detail on a portrait of a baby or most women, but a macro shot of a flower or insect may need a boost to unveil tiny detail.
Thr Deblur control of 'Detail' is basically a much simplified version of Topaz Focus at a small radius. It applies Deconvolution sharpening, which may produce ringing artifacts if the radius becomes too large. So I tend to use that at the milder settings. Zooming in on the best focused parts of the image helps to see the artifacts, and stop just short of them developing, and use som artifact suppression to find a balance.
But the other controls have much more overall visual impact, so that's where the personal taste gets in.
I tend to use a trick to see which specific detail is affected most to achieve my previsualized goal. Just put all three levels of detail at their minimum (see attached tip 1), and then only play with a single one of them in turn (see attached tip 2a) to isolate the parts of the image that are affected. If those are the parts that help the image to improve, then that's what to focus on. Again, the 'amount' is a matter of taste, but subtle always works. If the 'Small Details' control produces too much detail in smooth gradients or emphasizes noise in the sky, just use a bit of negative boost (see attached tip 2b), or use masking.
Do you resize the image first (I have a Canon ipf6300 which does better with 600 PPI input)? I am used to just selecting sharpen for print in LR and getting (fairly) good results, looking for some general guidelines on the use of Topaz Detail.
I do two things. At the native image size, I do the normal 'Creative sharpening' with 'Detail' (the Deblur control could be used as Capture sharpening, although I prefer FocusMagic if I have additional postprocessing to do). After upsampling to 600 PPI you basically only need to tackle some of the upsampling blur, and the Deblur control does a good job there. You can add an amount of Small Detail if the output medium loses too much punch due to ink diffusion, or if it could use some help in providing a more tactile aspect to image detail.
Minor artifacts that develop at 600 PPI will be virtually invisible at normal viewing distances. Because large format output at 600 PPI is probably upsampled, the Small Details control will be more effective in squeezing out every last bit of detail, and it will help in maintaining a good micro-contrast when people move in closer for inspection (the image remains more consistently sharp regardless of viewing distance).
So 'Deblur' and 'Small Details' are very useful for upsampled output sharpening.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Bart,
Thanks for the detailed reply. Should be very helpful.
John