PSCS2 vs Plugins: Sharpening etc

[dwdallam]

Any information on CS2 sharpening,  noise removers, etc. vs other filters? Of course this question assumes a RAW workflow. Specifically, can PSCS2 do a comparable job with CA removal, sharpening, and noise removal of other plug in filters? Or are there areas where PSCS2 isn't up to par, and a plug in filter is necessary?

Thanks again.

[DarkPenguin]

I think we need a more specific question.  Otherwise check out the articles on the main site.

[Tim Gray]

As noted, you could probably get the same effect sharpening on you own as with PKS, but for me the 2 or 3 clicks is worth it.  I don't think you can replicate the noise removal of Noise Ninja or Neat Image using the tools available within PS.

[Ben Rubinstein]

I've just discovered the 'Lens Blur' option of Smart Sharpen in CS2, couldn't be happier, finally sharpening that pleases me.

[jani]

I've just discovered the 'Lens Blur' option of Smart Sharpen in CS2, couldn't be happier, finally sharpening that pleases me.

Yes, I like this one, too. But sometimes, I find that the gaussian blur option works better, and other times it's just plain old unsharp mask that does the trick.

I'd love to be able to say that one is better for people photography, one is better for geometric cityscapes and another for hills and mountains, but I've seen no such pattern.

Huh.

Oh, I think there's one thing that smart sharpen does better than unsharp mask, at least in several cases:

It doesn't seem to enhance noise artifacts quite as much as unsharp mask.

[Ben Rubinstein]

Jani, try the lens blur vs USM, same settings, close up people photo, compare the skin texture, the hair and primarily the eyelashes and eyebrows, all at 100%. It's an amazing difference, I always found USM to look blocky at 100%. The noise, though maybe slightly harsher, looks more like grain but far far tighter than film could ever go. For landscape stuff, using a slightly larger radius in SS lens  blur seems to firm up the 'smushed' details such as grass and pebbles that USM doesn't quite make natural looking when trying to recover fine resolution blurred by the AA filter.

[jani]

Jani, try the lens blur vs USM, same settings, close up people photo, compare the skin texture, the hair and primarily the eyelashes and eyebrows, all at 100%. It's an amazing difference, I always found USM to look blocky at 100%. The noise, though maybe slightly harsher, looks more like grain but far far tighter than film could ever go. For landscape stuff, using a slightly larger radius in SS lens  blur seems to firm up the 'smushed' details such as grass and pebbles that USM doesn't quite make natural looking when trying to recover fine resolution blurred by the AA filter.

I never use the same radius with these two.

I've found that I often end up using SS at a radius around 1, sometimes even larger, while with USM, I stick to between 0.3 and 0.7. USM with a radius at or above 1 is usually awful on-screen. If I'm not printing large enlargements, I may increase these values, but the ratio between SS and USM seems to be about the same.

But thanks for the tip about going even larger on landscapes, I hadn't really dared to do that.