I wasn't referring so much to the product as to the idea of using it because it's cheaper. IF it's better AND cheaper, that's a win-win. But is it really? The testing I've done with deconvolution sharpening is that unless it is used VERY carefully, it produces much less satisfactory output than I get with PK2/LR.
Hi Mark,
I suggest you give FocusMagic a try, if you haven't already.
I have no commercial involvement with them, I'm just a someone who bought it after trying out lots of different sharpening methods and products, and reading on-line reviews/comparisons with images examples. But they use a pretty simple to use interface, not much one can do wrong there, it's what's going on under the hood that sets it apart from other offerings. That doesn't mean it always produces the best results, but the differences with much more involved alternatives is very small in the majority of cases in general photography.
A simple trick to avoid using the 'wrong' parameters with FocusMagic is the following.
- Set the amount control to its maximum, 300%.
- Start with the 'Blur width' setting at zero
- Now gradually increase the Blur width size by 1 at a time, while watching the small preview window
- there is usually a setting where, all of a sudden, the preview will start showing fatter contours/edges instead of sharper ones
- at that point just go back one Blur width value
- then reset the Amount control to a more 'reasonable' value, which depends on the image use, usually larger radii (such as after upsampling) can tolerate higher settings of 150+, smaller radii do best at 100 or less
One can play with various types of image source settings, but the default "Digital Camera" one is usually fine.
Deconvolution, a mathematical concept, is the most common way of
actually restoring resolution, many other methods only adjust edge contrast which
suggests higher resolution. There is no reason why the two cannot be used together for even higher (real and suggested) resolution.
That's why I also recommend having a look at 'Topaz Labs Detail'. It offers an amazing amount of control for the rendering of detail, which is not the same as resolution. Detail has to do with material surface structure and spatial dimensions. That is also very useful to improve the image quality for different viewing distances. 'Detail' offers a very creative way of interaction with the image, due to the real-time updates of the preview. The adjustments are not pixel dimension related but relative image size related, small medium and large detail, and produces no halos, so they should work well at various output sizes.
Cheers,
Bart