To sharpen or not to sharpen in Capture One

[Jack Flesher]

Can you explain why the Capture One User's Guide recommends against sharpening in C1, if sharpening will be done in downstream editors?

Rob

I honestly don't know, but will wager this guess: If you sharpen to taste in C1, its sharpening is so effective that any post sharpening is overkill and adds artifacts.

[Schewe]

I honestly don't know, but will wager this guess: If you sharpen to taste in C1, its sharpening is so effective that any post sharpening is overkill and adds artifacts.

Uh, if you sharpen to taste and it looks good at 100% (1:1) zoom then it will be under sharpened for any sort of print output–either ink jet or halftone. Output sharpening by definition needs to be visibly over sharpened...because it's impossible to preview the final output resolution to size on a display...

Just saying, C1 5.1's sharpening may be useful but it ain't output sharpening...

[Jack Flesher]

Uh, if you sharpen to taste and it looks good at 100% (1:1) zoom then it will be under sharpened for any sort of print output–either ink jet or halftone. Output sharpening by definition needs to be visibly over sharpened...because it's impossible to preview the final output resolution to size on a display...

Just saying, C1 5.1's sharpening may be useful but it ain't output sharpening...

I didn't think Rob was asking about output sharpening, I thought he was asking about post-process sharpening which I view as an interim step between capture and output, and the one I no longer perform. As I indicated earlier in this thread, I do still sharpen for intended output.

[tho_mas]

Can you explain why the Capture One User's Guide recommends against sharpening in C1, if sharpening will be done in downstream editors?

For instance if you want to soften skin of a portrait capture sharpening in the RAW software is counterproductive. Too, if you shoot wide open with a very shallow DOF you may want to sharpen only the in focus areas and leave the out of focus totally without sharpening. Too, if you shoot at higher ISO you may want to leave smooth surfaces (sky or so) without sharpening. ... etc. Too, again, if there are any further image transformations like distortion correction, rotation, resizing and the like it may be better to leave the image without sharpening in the first step.
Too, you may prefer different sharpening tools (I for one use Focal Blade for capture sharpening).
Bottom line: if you process your files without sharpening you simply keep more options for further editing.

[robgo2]

I didn't think Rob was asking about output sharpening, I thought he was asking about post-process sharpening which I view as an interim step between capture and output, and the one I no longer perform. As I indicated earlier in this thread, I do still sharpen for intended output.

Exactly.  Final output sharpening is a given.  I have been happily using Nik's pre-sharpener after conversion to TIFF, but that is only without any sharpening in the RAW stage.  Results are very good.  I will have to run some tests using the C1 sharpening, but skipping the TIFF pre-sharpener.

Rob

[GGordon]

Hi Lynn,

I think the best way to state it is this: If the native file is close to perfectly sharpened, then any follow-on sharpening is likely to only add detrimental artifacts and not improve the image in any meaningful fashion, so best to not do it.

It used to be I did a capture sharpening in raw, then in post I ran a detail extraction routine to maximize high-frequency detail in the native sized file. Essentially, these two series went after different frequencies of detail.  In my current workflow it is this second detail enhancement step that I'm finding is no longer needed.  When I downsize for web or small prints, I perform that in CS via "Bicubic Sharper," which in itself contains sharpening as you downsize -- so in that fashion I am sharpening for output, but I do not use any other sharpening tool beyond that.  If I have to upsize, my routine uses Bicubic Smoother to 20% over desired size, then Bicubic Sharper to get back down to desired print size. This is sort of a quasi fractal sharpening method,  and again is my typical sharpening routine for print and usually no other output sharpening is required.  With very large prints, I sometimes invoke a targeted sharpening routine for edges and a second masked set for detail, however, since C1 ver 5 I have yet to need to do this for any of my captures.  Finally, if you print via a RIP or printing program like Q-Image, they apply their own proprietary output size-based sharpening algorithms that are usually quite good. (Personally, I send a pre-sized and optimized file to the printer as per above, so I dial this option down to the lower settings.)  

As for 3rd party sharpeners like Nik, I honestly have never needed them.  Not saying they're bad -- in fact they are probably great for folks that can't sharpen using CS, or who want to paint-in their sharpening. But IMO they're definitely not necessary, and even less so now with the improvements in C1 --  but then I like a simple, streamlined workflow, so the fewer programs I use, the better.

Again, this is just my basic workflow and YMMV...

Cheers,

Good info there. I have saved my sharpening till the image is in LR or PS about to be printed but absolutely need to try C1 for output sharpening. If anything I have a tendancy to under sharpen so a comparison may be hard to prove to even to myself. I normally find the clarity slider draws out most of the needed detail so I then go light with the sharpening.