Today's best app for upsizing/sharpening for prints?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

[...] I have found that by backing down my capture sharpening in LR or C1, then adding the FM step, I get better results.[...]

Hi Paul,

I agree, if one uses sharpening in LR or Capture One at all, do not do more that the bare minimum, Capture sharpening, not a combination of Capture and Creative sharpening. The user interface of both LR and C1, but the same applies to almost all Raw converters, is not all that helpful for accomplishing that crucial task. Human Interface Design innovation is long overdue in that area.

I generally disable C1 sharpening on Export of the actual image, there's toggle in the output recipe. I leave it on in the presets for display purposes, to identify correctly focused images and the effects of other adjustments easier.

This combined with the Topaz Clarity tool have really made for changes in my workflow.  (another of Bart's suggestions).

You're welcome, Topaz Clarity can really lift a veil of drabness from most images. Topaz Detail is another a gem for Creative sharpening and modification of surface structure, and for giving output another boost when upsampling, especially when using a significant magnification.

I still use LR for all printing at 360ppi and just let LR do the final upgrez/sharpening steps or downrez depending on the file and print.

 

Although it adds some inconvenience in the workflow, there is still some improvement to be had if you export a 'print master' from LR and 'manually' Output sharpen that. Both FocusMagic and Topaz Detail can help with that.

Cheers,
Bart

[Mike Sellers]

Where does Qimage fit in here? I have been letting Qimage upres the image and then sharpen on the way to the printer. How does it compare to the other methods? Can I do better in LR or what?
Mike

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Where does Qimage fit in here? I have been letting Qimage upres the image and then sharpen on the way to the printer. How does it compare to the other methods? Can I do better in LR or what?

Hi Mike,

Qimage also produces excellent results, especially because it resamples all the way up to 600/720PPI before Output sharpening is applied on the result of good upsampling algorithms. But Qimage is only available on Windows (unless one uses Parallels or similar on a MAC).

Qimage also offers a lot of other extras, so it's definitely a good choice to use for producing consistently high quality output. It can remember lots of earlier settings for re-use at a later date, which makes it very efficient also for repurposing the same image (different sizes and output media).

Cheers,
Bart

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

QImage is a great product and LR is a great product. My guess is that it does not really matter. The way I see it, both QImage and Lightroom prepare the image for printing. I am pretty sure that output sharpening in both tools is based on a lot of real world testing.

Best regards
Erik

Where does Qimage fit in here? I have been letting Qimage upres the image and then sharpen on the way to the printer. How does it compare to the other methods? Can I do better in LR or what?
Mike

[Mike Sellers]

Qimage has something called DFS-Deep Focus Sharpening. Here is a you tube video for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoXcB1uzk
all this for $69.00

[digitaldog]

Qimage has something called DFS-Deep Focus Sharpening. Here is a you tube video for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiVoXcB1uzk
all this for $69.00

Not sure about the point of the video. I see USM, set too high with an ugly halo yes. We see no sharpening as well, good. We see a better result for sure with DFS. But USM was just not set correctly (or the product doesn't do this well). Is it impossible to use USM, produce sufficient sharpening (for what BTW, capture or output?) without halo's? Was that USM setting a default?

My experience with sharpening for output, it can look pretty ratty on-screen and print better than the opposite. So when the video tells us "you'll see those halo's", that may indeed be possible and it may appear better on the print.

DFS looks better on-screen, I'd like to see the prints! And I'd like to see USM settings that don't hose the image if possible.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Not sure about the point of the video. I see USM, set too high with an ugly halo yes. We see no sharpening as well, good. We see a better result for sure with DFS. But USM was just not set correctly (or the product doesn't do this well). Is it impossible to use USM, produce sufficient sharpening (for what BTW, capture or output?) without halo's? Was that USM setting a default?

Hi Andrew,

I agree that the comparison is not how I would have done it (but rather with a much smaller USM radius), but as a long time Qimage user I can confirm from personal experience that the DFS is a rather unique halo free, edge enhancing, sharpening method. As such it is excellent for Output sharpening especially at 600/720 PPI settings which can actually resolve the edge detail that Qimage produces.

My experience with sharpening for output, it can look pretty ratty on-screen and print better than the opposite. So when the video tells us "you'll see those halo's", that may indeed be possible and it may appear better on the print.

DFS looks better on-screen, I'd like to see the prints! And I'd like to see USM settings that don't hose the image if possible.

Correct, but there is not much ratty about DFS to begin with, although real detail may start to be non-existing at high magnifications. What's more, it is applied automatically with printed output which Qimage scales to 600/720 PPI on-the fly during printing (no need for large intermediate files to allow sharpening at that size), although the amount is user selectable. One can instead choose the USM version of smart sharpening, but that also uses a much smaller radius (variable with magnification), however, since DFS there is little reason to choose USM.

So again, the demo is perhaps not the best to demonstrate output sharpening, but it does work very well. I don't know how Mike Chaney did it, but it is a very clever innovation.

Cheers,
Bart

[hubell]

Hi Paul,

I agree, if one uses sharpening in LR or Capture One at all, do not do more that the bare minimum, Capture sharpening, not a combination of Capture and Creative sharpening. The user interface of both LR and C1, but the same applies to almost all Raw converters, is not all that helpful for accomplishing that crucial task. Human Interface Design innovation is long overdue in that area.

I generally disable C1 sharpening on Export of the actual image, there's toggle in the output recipe. I leave it on in the presets for display purposes, to identify correctly focused images and the effects of other adjustments easier.

You're welcome, Topaz Clarity can really lift a veil of drabness from most images. Topaz Detail is another a gem for Creative sharpening and modification of surface structure, and for giving output another boost when upsampling, especially when using a significant magnification.
  

Although it adds some inconvenience in the workflow, there is still some improvement to be had if you export a 'print master' from LR and 'manually' Output sharpen that. Both FocusMagic and Topaz Detail can help with that.

Cheers,
Bart

Thanks, Bart. My workflow has been to use FM for capture sharpening upon export from LR to PS, and then
PK for output sharpening to print from PS. Are you saying it makes more sense to use light capture sharpening in
LR and then use FM for output sharpening for print from PS?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks, Bart. My workflow has been to use FM for capture sharpening upon export from LR to PS, and then
PK for output sharpening to print from PS. Are you saying it makes more sense to use light capture sharpening in
LR and then use FM for output sharpening for print from PS?

Hi Howard,

No, FM is much better at Capture sharpening, so I would in that case only Capture sharpen upon Export from LR and use FM then. You can then use your favorite sharpening tools for Output sharpening. You can use the adjustment brushes in LR for only applying local Creative adjustments based on the settings of the Detail panel, but not use the Detail panel for overall sharpening. I assume (haven't tried myself) that you can disable the Sharpening panel but still use its settings for adjustment brushes (but use with care because of the shifted to later Capture sharpening).

In PS you have the possibility to also do other things, like make a sharpening layer with settings based on the center of the image, and one for the more blurry corners. Then blend them with a radial gradient mask.

FM is capable of sharpening the upsampled output (if available memory allows) very nicely. Should you run into memory issues, you can divide the image in selections (using guides to make exact selections) and sharpen those individually in PS.

Cheers,
Bart

[hubell]

Thanks, Bart. One disadvantage to my workflow of using FM for capture sharpening after the raw file that I have worked on in LR is exported to PS is that the use of Clarity in LR before the capture sharpening step is not ideal. It would be great if FM could work directly on the raw data in LR as a plug-in, but I guess Adobe won't allow it.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thanks, Bart. One disadvantage to my workflow of using FM for capture sharpening after the raw file that I have worked on in LR is exported to PS is that the use of Clarity in LR before the capture sharpening step is not ideal. It would be great if FM could work directly on the raw data in LR as a plug-in, but I guess Adobe won't allow it.

Hi Howard,

I agree it's not ideal having to do these things outside of LR. It's time that Adobe got their sharpening act together ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Howard,

I agree it's not ideal having to do these things outside of LR. It's time that Adobe got their sharpening act together ...

Cheers,
Bart

From my rather extensive experience using Lightroom I don't think this is a matter of whether they have their act together. It works very well when used well. Of course everything can always be better, but since I don't have a PhD in the mathematics of digital imaging it would be well beyond me to advise on whether the mathematical properties of working with raw data differ from those working with rendered pixel-based images, posing different kinds of computational issues. And perhaps the kind of algorithms being used in FM are not compatible with a  raw converter working on raw data. I wouldn't know - just suggesting that the issues may be more complex than meets the eye.

[Shutterbug2006]

I use Qimage and I find it extremely useful. I also have Perfect Resize, and I use it when I'm printing on canvas.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I use Qimage and I find it extremely useful. I also have Perfect Resize, and I use it when I'm printing on canvas.

Hi,

I agree that they both allow to produce very high output quality by using advanced resampling algorithms, and by adding a high quality (adjustable) Output sharpening after that resampling. It becomes clear when one compares output quality with that from other programs, as many people that started using those programs (and thus can compare output quality between workflows) report.

Cheers,
Bart

[Denis de Gannes]

Hi,

I agree that they both allow to produce very high output quality by using advanced resampling algorithms, and by adding a high quality (adjustable) Output sharpening after that resampling. It becomes clear when one compares output quality with that from other programs, as many people that started using those programs (and thus can compare output quality between workflows) report.

Cheers,
Bart

I print almost exclusively with Qimage mainly at 13" x 19". Simply my go to even though I have LR 5 and PS CS6 available.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I print almost exclusively with Qimage mainly at 13" x 19". Simply my go to even though I have LR 5 and PS CS6 available.

I do not think much can be gained in the resampling (up + down) + output sharpening phase by using other applications than Qimage Ultimate. Its nice DFS sharpening can be used in Qimage's image editing phase too but QU lacks a proper deconvolution sharpening as a first step in image editing / raw conversion. I use very few of its image editing functions anyway but am hooked on its printing functions. The customers like the output too. For a fast RAW conversion + printing on well exposed images I go in automatic mode with QU and it can be better/faster than with other RAW convertors but only then. Beyond that the image editing functions like the curves tool are too odd to get used to. Sometimes I think that Mike should abandon that image editing part totally but the crop function + the rotate function or rewrite that image editing part in total. For me it is just the RAW conversion in its auto mode, the crop function and then that wealth of printing functions it already has. Enough able RAW converters with integrated image editing exist already. From RawTherapee to Photoshop. There is even a kind of mental separation between good/elaborate image editing and making the physical output that makes me think the two tasks should be split.

--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
April 2014, 600+ inkjet media white spectral plots.