Which Capture Stage Sharpeners?

[Mike Sellers]

Focus Magic or Nik Sharpener?

[Mark D Segal]

Photokit Sharpener Pro 2 by PixelGenius

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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).

[Malcolm Payne]

FWIW, I use FocusMagic for capture sharpening (or occasionally Topaz InFocus, where I want a little more control and granularity in the process) and Nik Sharpener for output sharpening, though I usually dial Nik back a little from its default strength, depending on the particular image. Whether that's the best possible combination I don't know, but it gives me consistently excellent and repeatable results.

I haven't done a direct comparison, but I've used Nik RAW pre-sharpener for capture sharpening in the past, when certain files were too large for the old 32-bit version of FocusMagic to handle and before InFocus was available, and the results were perfectly good. Though conceptually at least, deconvolution sharpening seems to make a lot of sense for the capture stage, even if the more traditional acutance and edge enhancement tools are employed for output.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[bjanes]

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

[Mark D Segal]

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

Hi Bill,

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. Nor would I be afraid to "admit it". It's a totally viable, satisfactory workflow that produces excellent results when used appropriately. And the Capture sharpen function in LR is based on the PKS approach. Pixelgenius was Adobe's consultant for the development of that piece of the application. I'm not concerned about when PKS2 was released, my only reference point on the quality of an application is what I see on paper when the print comes out of the printer, and I think PKS remains superb. As well, consider that when using PKS, it is designed so that one stage builds on the next. Now, maybe in practice one can mix and match between applications for the various stages of sharpening, but that isn't something I've generally felt the need to do, having tested a number of these sharpeners as they appeared over the years.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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.

Hi Bill,

Some good points.

First, not all cameras (or rather lens+camera combinations) require the same settings. In fact, cameras without an OLPF can sometimes (with a good lens, not stopped down too much, and in the narrow plane of perfect focus) show aliasing artifacts. Capture sharpening will only make those aliasing artifacts more noticeable. That is a bit of a problem, because the lens will exhibit residual aberration blur and some level of diffraction in the mix, which does require deconvolution sharpening. That's also why different apertures require different sharpening radius settings, but aliasing would probably require none to keep it in check.

Second, workflow convenience can also play a role.

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.

Once we want/need to get an image out of LR and into PS or another editor for further work, we have the option of using whatever type of sharpening LR had to offer, or skip that sharpening step in LR, and pick up where LR left us. In that case I would probably try to do as little sharpening in LR as possible and try the more sophisticated tools like FocusMagic in the auxiliary editor. The benefit is that we can use masks and layer blends to localize the sharpening if need be, and the sharpening will be of higher quality.

FocusMagic has the more balanced low artifact deconvolution, but if it gets in conflict with camera induced aliasing issues, we have more tools to mitigate or work around the problem, and still utilize the full power of FM where it can be most useful. Otherwise, Topaz Labs Detail is also a marvel. It offers deconvolution for the finest detail (capture sharpening) if we can void artifacts, and it offers halo free detail enhancement at several detail size levels (with the possibility to tweak highlights and shadows separately). Again, we can use masking if we want to localize the effects.

Cheers,
Bart

[t6b9p]

When implementing deconvolution capture sharpening, is it advantageous to implement noise reduction after rather than before sharpening?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

When implementing deconvolution capture sharpening, is it advantageous to implement noise reduction after rather than before sharpening?

Hi,

Technically it is better to do deconvolution on unaltered capture data. Noise is always going to reduce the chance of successful restoration of the original data. But some careful noise reduction will not hurt the process that much. FocusMagic manages to leave the noise less sharpened than the detail, and it will add (optional) noise suppression with larger radius (>4) deblurring.

Cheers,
Bart

[t6b9p]

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?

thanks
Shane

[t6b9p]

Sorry Mike I didn't mean to sidetrack your original question but thought it was somewhat related.

I have Nik sharpener but have been unable to find any reference as to whether the RAW Presharpener utilizes decon, I suspect it doesn't.

[bjanes]

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.

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

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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?

Yes, Chrominance NR shouldn't hurt too much.

Cheers,
Bart

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

In my workflow, that leaves creative sharpening as the main use of PKS.

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

[Mark D Segal]

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,

For avoidance of doubt: in the LR Develop Module, the sharpening algorithm is capture sharpening. In the Print Module, the sharpening algorithm is Output Sharpening. The Adobe engineers are responsible for both but Pixelgenius assisted on both - as far as I recall. I use both within LR for photos made with a digital camera and rarely need anything else. If the photo starts life as fuzzy I normally trash it; life's too short for futzing about with all that deconvolution stuff only to get a result that may be passable, but not first rate on a 13*19 enlargement - my experience, but each to his/her own. For film scans I use PKS in Photohop because it has bespoke algorithms for film that work very well, especially in conjunction with Neat Image for Noise Reduction - when in PS, all this done on separate layers with masks allowing one to target as appropriate.

[bjanes]

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

I have had Detail 3 for some time but had merely been using some of the presets. On your recommendation, I spent some time perusing the documentation and watching some of the Webinars on the Topaz site and quickly learned that I had not making full use of the capabilities of the software. The Grid previews of the various presets is helpful, but the real strength of the program lies in the individual adjustments and one can study how the presets affect the individual parameters and proceed accordingly. After a bit of practice, the interface is not that intimidating. The localized adjustments are far superior what one can do in Photokit (at least without a lot of work). I also find Topaz Clarity very useful and Adjust can be helpful in some cases. Do you find Adjust helpful?

Thanks for your help,

Bill

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Do you find Adjust helpful?

It can be useful for complex lighting situations. The adaptive exposure and saturation are interesting but, when not used with moderation, it can create halos. It can be a bit difficult to predict what it will exactly do to the image, so that's why it is very much an interactive tool. I tend to switch back and forth a lot between snapshot settings.

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

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. 

[texshooter]

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?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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?

Hi,

It looks like the current crop of Raw-converters first do a demosaicing of the Raw data, and then do their post-processing (including generic sharpening) on the conversion result.

In that case it would not make matter much, other than that the parametric workflow postpones he actual operations till final export. At export time, the parameters are applied in a predetermined order, possibly with sharpening and noise reduction as one of the earlier operations in the cue, but not necessarily the first (e.g. preceded by lens corrections).

That would mean that it doesn't make much difference where the generic sharpening takes place, but it also depends on the type of sharpening operation and other image altering steps taken. In fact, the sharpening by FocusMagic applied on an almost finished file, can produce better results that lesser quality sharpening operations applied early on.

As for Capture sharpening in particular, that's a bit different. If done well, it is best done very early in the processing pipeline, just like noise reduction. 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 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.

So, as things are today, I think it doesn't matter much when the generic sharpening is applied, although it would technically be better to do Capture sharpening in particular early in the process, but then one should have better tools than most of us have today. Without these better tools, we might as well do our sharpening later in the process, which would also avoid surprises when we decide that we need larger output (which magnifies cascaded artifact generation). Doing it late in the process also allows to vary it locally, e.g. not on smooth gradients, or more in corners.

Cheers,
Bart