Focus Magic or Nik Sharpener?
FocusMagic is what I use. It is dedicated to do one thing, deblurring AKA sharpening, and it does it well. It is very obvious when you are pushing things too far, so finding the best settings is not that hard. It uses well implemented deconvolution algorithms, and is capable of increasing resolution more than the noise, thus improving the Signal to Noise ratio as well.
I don't have much experience with Nik Sharpener. It looks good enough, but FocusMagic keeps being reported by serious testers as the best tool. Maybe it's time for a new shoot-out between some of these tools.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. There are some alternatives as well, e.g. Topaz Infocus (=mainly deconvolution sharpening) and Topaz Detail (=some basic deconvolution + mostly halo free detail enhancement, very impressive), and a few others. Piccure+ is a new contender (=deconvolution, comes close to FocusMagic's quality but still suffers from some artifacts). And there are some Photoshop centric tools like Photokit sharpener (=mainly edge contrast, acutance, enhancement).
I hesitate to admit it, but I use Lightroom for the majority of my non-critical capture sharpening. My camera (Nikon D800e) lacks a blur filter and needs less capture sharpening than cameras with such a filter and the parametric workflow is a great convenience. For those images that will need to be brought into Photoshop and saved as TIFFs, I do use Focus Magic or the Topaz sharpeners. One problem for me with Topaz is that there is a bewildering number of adjustments in each application and is is not clear which of the Topaz tools would be best for a given image and what the optimal parameters might be (I lack Bart's sophistication). Focus Magic is much simpler to use.
With LR/ACR one can make use of a simplified deconvolution tool by moving the detail slider to the right and my testing shows that the results are not that much inferior to those obtained with Focus Magic. I respect Mark Segal's opinion, but PhotoKit is old technology for capture sharpening. However, it is good for creative and output sharpening.
Bill
I hesitate to admit it, but I use Lightroom for the majority of my non-critical capture sharpening. My camera (Nikon D800e) lacks a blur filter and needs less capture sharpening than cameras with such a filter and the parametric workflow is a great convenience.
For those images that will need to be brought into Photoshop and saved as TIFFs, I do use Focus Magic or the Topaz sharpeners. One problem for me with Topaz is that there is a bewildering number of adjustments in each application and is is not clear which of the Topaz tools would be best for a given image and what the optimal parameters might be (I lack Bart's sophistication). Focus Magic is much simpler to use.
When implementing deconvolution capture sharpening, is it advantageous to implement noise reduction after rather than before sharpening?
I routinely use LR's sharpening and normally I go straight from ingestion to Print through LR. Few photos get converted from the raw format.
Thanks Bart, that is what I suspected.
I was considering LR/ACR chrominance NR but no Luminance NR, then out to CS for FM deconvolution, followed by FM NR or possibly Dfine or Denoise. Does that sound a reasonable approach?
In my workflow, that leaves creative sharpening as the main use of PKS.
Mark,
I am a bit confused as to how you use PKS for capture sharpening without leaving LR, unless you consider the LR capture sharpening as PKSII. Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe did consult with Adobe regarding sharpening in LR and ACR, but Eric Chan added substantial improvements in the capture sharpening phase with these applications. As far as I know, the output sharpening in LR is a more direct adaption of PKS and has the advantage of better resampling via Lightroom to the printer resolution than that obtained in Photoshop. I agree that one can obtain excellent results with the LR sharpening tools, but agree with Bart that if the image needs editing in Photoshop, one should feel free to use the best sharpening tools for that image.
PKS is an excellent output sharpener, but I find it more convenient to print from LR rather than from Photoshop, so I save the Photoshop edits as a TIFF master image and print from LR. In my workflow, that leaves creative sharpening as the main use of PKS. I understand that this is also the current approach of Mr. Schewe.
Regards,
Bill
Hi Bill,
If you haven't already, I suggest you give Topaz Detail a try. Creative sharpening isn't really sharpening but something more acutance related, and that is exactly where 'Detail' does a better job of enhancing features (without risk of halos, which is always an issue with USM like adjustments). Besides FocusMagic for Capture sharpening, Detail is my other must use plugin (together with Topaz Clarity) for Creative and Output sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
Do you find Adjust helpful?
Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe did consult with Adobe regarding sharpening in LR and ACR, but Eric Chan added substantial improvements in the capture sharpening phase with these applications.Correct. The data is different too but LR's initial sharpening (capture and output) were based on those guys work. It's better than it was, it makes a lot of sense to do capture sharpening in LR. If you have Lightroom and you are working with raw data, you probably want to do capture sharpening there. If you print in LR, same with output (it is restricted to ink jet and screen). If you don't own LR, PKS II in Photoshop after rendering gets you there as well. Of capture sharpen in LR, output sharpen after creative sharpening if desired, in PS, print there. Lots of ways to skin this cat.
Can an argument be raised that capture sharpening is best done to the RAW file while inside a parametric editor (LR/ACR) rather than to a converted file (.PSD/.TIFF) while inside PS? Or does it matter?
I get the impression that that is what happens in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) raw converter, when the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is used. The Raw data is recalculated to a version without lens aberrations, with lens blur removed, and resaved in the Raw file container as an additional raw dataset, thus almost doubling the file size. That optically corrected raw image data is then demosaiced into a much better quality, and less sharpening is required as a post-processing step.
Incidentally, Canon recommends all sharpening be turned off before starting the DLO function....
Funny thing ACR lacks this sophistication. I'm disappointed.
It would make sense to even do most of it before demosaicing, because that would produce more accurate data to demosaic. However, that requires much more complicated Raw conversion.
I would be interested to know what steps/software a "complicated Raw conversion" would require in order to implement deconvolution prior to demosaicing.
I would be interested to know what steps/software a "complicated Raw conversion" would require in order to implement deconvolution prior to demosaicing.
I am shooting 830nm IR which behaves similarly to a monochromatic sensor as the dyes in the Bayer array are basically transparent to IR at this wavelength. Therefore I would like to perform deconvolution sharpening to the image prior to demosaicing and then move on to CS for other edits.
I already understand what needs to be done, I was more interested in what software options were available to implement those steps e.g. Dcraw, Rawtherapee etc. In other words I was looking for a good solution to implement FocusMagic deconvolution prior to passing off to CS
Also, at 830nm, the Bayer dyes are not quite equally transparent so require slight scaling, followed by subsequent processing without demosaicing (after all, if the sensor is responding like a monochrome sensor why treat it like a Bayer sensor and bother demosaicing).
I hesitate to admit it, but I use Lightroom for the majority of my non-critical capture sharpening. My camera (Nikon D800e) lacks a blur filter and needs less capture sharpening than cameras with such a filter and the parametric workflow is a great convenience. For those images that will need to be brought into Photoshop and saved as TIFFs, I do use Focus Magic or the Topaz sharpeners. One problem for me with Topaz is that there is a bewildering number of adjustments in each application and is is not clear which of the Topaz tools would be best for a given image and what the optimal parameters might be (I lack Bart's sophistication). Focus Magic is much simpler to use.
With LR/ACR one can make use of a simplified deconvolution tool by moving the detail slider to the right and my testing shows that the results are not that much inferior to those obtained with Focus Magic. I respect Mark Segal's opinion, but PhotoKit is old technology for capture sharpening. However, it is good for creative and output sharpening.
Bill
Infocus is supposed to be the Topaz tool of choice for capture sharpening while Detail is supposed to be the creative/output tool of choice. But yeah, Topaz has too many tools that are similar to try and keep track!
I use Infocus for all my capture sharpening because I like how it estimates the de-blur for me. With ACR, I don't know what I'm getting really. Although, I'm sure experts like Jeff Schewe, who wrote the bible on the subject, will probably vouch for deconvolving with ACR's sliders, instead. Except Bart, of course.
Basically, I start with a high value on the amount and then hit the masking slider such that masks sharpening the sky or other areas like that. Then I work the detail and radius sliders to suit and then back down the amount to what I think works best remembering that this is capture sharpening.
Why would you need to mask the sky for capture sharpening? Assuming you are starting with a low noise image, if you need to mask the sky then your sharpening amount is too strong from the outset. True capture sharpening does not over-sharpen any area, skies or else. Perhaps your intent is to combine creative and capture sharpening in a single pass (which is ok is you're short on time? The way I see it, capture sharpening is the first pass of sharpening to be applied globally, no masking slider required. Afterwards, If I want the higher frequency details punched up a bit I will apply some creative sharpening using Smart Sharpen, Blend Ifs, sky masking, etc, while inside PS and after all editing is done.
Why would you need to mask the sky for capture sharpening?
Because capture sharpening should sharpen edges and not surfaces...
Is this a good idea?
In actuality, the first slider to select should be radius ...
... and is based on the edge frequency of the image....
... then amount then detail and finally, masking.
But hey, this is coming from somebody who has 1/2 a clue how to use ACR/LR capture sharpening....note, I did actually work with the engineers to help develop ACR/LR's capture sharpening.
No..this guy is a putz with an accent...you really (really) don't want to pay attention to this guy...while some of what he says is useful the problem is you won't know what part is useful.
In actuality, the first slider to select should be radius and is based on the edge frequency of the image....then amount then detail and finally, masking.
But hey, this is coming from somebody who has 1/2 a clue how to use ACR/LR capture sharpening....note, I did actually work with the engineers to help develop ACR/LR's capture sharpening.
Capture sharpening is supposed to reverse the blurring effects that caused our original Capture lose some of the original sharpness/detail. This has nothing to do with the original subject's detail, but only with the Capture process induced blur. The subject is not to blame that it now blurred, it's the Capture process itself. If we are able to reverse the capture blur, the subject will be restored to it's original full 'unblurredness' (how's that for a scrabble word ;) ). Some (but not all) detail is already lost beyond recovery, so it won't become perfect, but we can still restore a lot.
If we use the commonly used three staged sharpening (capture, creative, and output), it seems to me that sharpening according to image content would fall into the creative stage. I have been using Topaz Detail for this purpose, since it allows sharpening according to detail size (see screen capture below). For capture sharpening, I find the built in ACR/LR tools are adequate if one is using parametric editing. If a TIFF image will be produced, one can use the tool of one's choice. I understand that the Topaz tool of choice for capture sharpening is InFocus, but many use Detail for all three phases of sharpening.
Bill
Topaz suggests that Detail be used for Output Sharpening, though with the masking tools it can certainly be used for creative sharpening as well. The whole capture/creative/output sharpening model only makes sense if one follows a relatively strict workflow and creates intermediary files from which final output files are derived. Assuming a RAW input file, I guess one could say that capture sharpening would always be the same. Creative sharpening would usually be unique only given the intermediary file size. Only the output sharpening would be totally unique to each size/type of output.
(http://blog.topazlabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Screen-Shot-2014-02-06-at-3.06.47-PM.png)
Why does creative/capture/output sharpening have to be so theological. Please, somebody put together a definitive and comprehensive video tutorial on the subject (for profit of course), packaged with before and after full-Rez files. It's all one big rabbit hole.It's all rather simple really: http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-gamut-almost-everything-you-wanted-know-about-sharpening-photoshop-were-afraid-ask
There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening. Jeff Schewe states that the "radius and is based on the edge frequency of the image", whereas Bart disagrees and has even produced a slanted edge analysis tool (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=68089.0) to determine the radius. For a given lens, the primary variable is the aperture, a larger radius being required for smaller apertures (larger f-numbers).
There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening.
Thanks for the graphic. It is helpful in clarifying which Topaz tool to use in various stages of the workflow.
There is some disagreement regarding capture sharpening. Jeff Schewe states that the "radius and is based on the edge frequency of the image", whereas Bart disagrees and has even produced a slanted edge analysis tool (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=68089.0) to determine the radius. For a given lens, the primary variable is the aperture, a larger radius being required for smaller apertures (larger f-numbers). For my own work, I use Bart's advice.
For output sharpening, Mr Schewe states in his Image Sharpening book (page 108-109), that output sharpening is a fixed determinate process whose parameters are determined by the type of output (halftone, contone, ink-jet, etc), the image size and resolution, and the paper type. According to this concept, image content does not matter. His parameters are incorporated into the LR output sharpening and PhotoKit Sharpener.
That leaves creative sharpening as the main area where image content is an important consideration. Others may choose to differ.
Regards,
Bill
Starting with capture sharpening, I agree that the main intention is to restore information lost in capture. So radius would be chosen to match diffraction + OLP filtering and deconvolution would be used. But, that would not be the optimal setting for portraits as it enhances both real and fake detail.
If the sharpening adds artefacts of it's own, it is reasonable that it would be done at the largest image size in the process.
The way I handle it, right now, is that I use a small radius (0.7) and relatively large amount with deconvolution in LR. If I stop down to f/16 or more I increase radius to 1.3. This works well for my standard print size which is A2.
Good deconvolution tools attempt to restore resolution, but not amplify noise, or at least restore more resolution than amplify noise for a better S/N ratio. [...] This is where it gets interesting, because some noise reduction programs use a combination of blurring, and edge detail preserving techniques, which breaks the original signal's true composition of spatial frequencies [...]
if e.g. stairstepping, or even worse halos, are created by the Capture sharpening process then we are making life only more difficult for when we want to generate large output.
Hi Bart,
If large output is the end requirement, would it not be optimal to uprez the file before demosaicing and perform capture sharpening and, noise reduction if required, later in the conversion process ? I would have thought that if all three are performed sequentially prior to generating a TIFF output file - that would give you the 'cleanest' result.
I'm asking you because, as you are no doubt aware, Iridient Developer V3 has recently been released and AFAIK, this is the first RAW converter to include, natively, an option to uprez the file prior to demosaicing, noise reduction and capture sharpening.
You have been a strong advocate of Focus Magic and Topaz's InFocus as capture sharpeners, but both these entail converting first, baking and sharpening later so I'm asking you whether or not, in your opinion, a change in the post processing methodology would be beneficial when large output is the end requirement.
... but a subtle improvement is certainly expected if the algorithms are implemented very well. In fact, it would also benefit original size conversions, provided that the down-sampling is optimized to avoid resampling artifacts.
Yes, I am aware, but being a Windows platform person I cannot test it. I'm pretty sure I could provide some pointers to handling some of their challenges.
Bruce felt that both the image source; film scan or digital capture (and demosiacing), noise/grain characterizations, lens characterizations and other aspects of the source needed to be factored into the sharpening along with the image characterizations that depend on the edge frequency of the image.
Both factors need to be addressed for optimal capture sharpening. If you only consider the image source and not the image aspects then it becomes more difficult to optimize an image prior to creative and output sharpening. Bottom line, sharpening the edges, not the surfaces and pick a radius appropriate to all aspects of the image.
Some may consider the image contents not to apply when capture sharpening...I disagree. And so did Thomas Knoll when he asked Bruce Fraser to consult with Adobe for improvements in the sharpening in Camera Raw. Bruce was able to lend some effort but could not finish prior to his passing. Using Bruce's philosophy of capture sharpening lead to the current ACR/LR sharpening which was furthered by Eric Chan.
This has always been my philosophy...Capture Sharpening is intended to correct for the limitations of the capture AND to provide the best starting point for further edits. Hence, the image content must be accounted for in the capture sharpening process.
What you describe is already the task of Creative 'sharpening' which then has no artifacts from Capture sharpening to stumble over. When you get the Capture sharpening wrong, then Creative 'sharpening' either cannot do its best, or it overdoes things which were already overdone.I believe Bruce would agree. He'd also suggest getting the capture sharpening and hence the creative sharpening correct.
Regarding the highly evangelized Topaz Infocus, can someone explain the difference between its Edge Softness and Suppress Artifacts sliders.
I read the manual but am still muddy. The best I can come up with is that the Edge Softness slider is for reducing edge "Ringing", an artifact uniquely generated by Topaz's software, and the Suppress Artifacts slider is for reducing noise.
The method of deconvolution that Topaz InFocus uses, can produce very/unnaturally sharp edges that can lead to stair-stepping and such. That's where the Edge Softness control is for, to soften the transition. InFocus can also generate ringing artifacts, repeated edges of gradually lower amplitude. That is what the Suppress artifacts control is for, to suppress those repeating edges.
The method of deconvolution that Topaz InFocus uses
Hi Bart, I have often wondered: what method of deconvolution does it use?
FWIW in my opinion one of InFocus' strengths is its quick and easy automatic 'Estimate' mode. I find that Albert Yang's suggested settings (https://www.flickr.com/groups/topaz/discuss/72157625327974579/72157625454081334/) (Unknown/Estimate, Radius 2, Softness 0.3, Suppress Artifact 0.2) work well as-is a majority of the time. I have them saved as a preset and it's the first set I try.
In this video (start 6:00), The Topaz rep uses the Edge Softness slider to correct an artifact which he calls "ringing." Is this artifact the same kind you refered to as "...ringing artifacts, repeated edges of gradually lower amplitude"? If yes, why does he recommend the Edge Softness slider to fix it while you say to use the Supress Artifacts slider?
It would help if I saw exactly the types of artifacts each of these sliders are designed to mitigate. How does "Ringing" look different from "stair stepping?"
Only then adjust the Sharpness panel controls, sharpness radius first (usually smaller than the deconvolution radius), sharpness and micro contrast next, until you get an acceptable artifact free result. This way you are guaranteed artifact free results that will stand large format output without magnified artifacts.
A Topaz official said InFocus' Sharpness panel uses USM technology (albeit a new and improved version of USM). (Ref. video 12:00-13:30)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zChtYpEBFBQ (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zChtYpEBFBQ)
So I'm surprised to hear you suggest the Sharpness panel during the capture sharpening phase. Shouldn't I turn off InFocus' Sharpness panel (after completing capture sharpening) and save USM methods for the end of the entire edit workflow? The part about maxing out the Sharpness panel sliders as a starting fulcrum to help estimate the deconvolution radius...I understand that however....and will give it a try, thanks.
... would be even more useful if one could import one's own PSF...
You know who I think is taking advantage of that approach these days is Olympus, with the EM5II's custom raw conversion PS plug-in for the 64MP High Resolution images. Taking a look at the resulting MTF curve, it appears to me that they use a sensor specific PSF, pushing it to taking advantage of the fact that supersampling leaves the raw curve quite a ways from Nyquist OOC.