Plug-In: Best Sharpening Plug-ins

[Chain]

It does not know how sharpening has been applied (it has no way of doing so), so when it is time for output sharpening the settings assumes the image has been correctly sharpened - if this was done in lightroom or somewhere else should not matter.

[Flashtones]

So when does it assume "incorrect" sharpening has been applied, and in so doing how does it alter output sharpening?

Andrew is suggesting there is a dynamic in LR's output sharpening relative to it's assessments on what type of sharpening has been done so far. And the assessment criterion being: "correct" or "incorrect" capture sharpening.

I'm trying to determine how the the dynamic is applied. It assumes RAWs are "correctly" sharpened, I assume, if ANY capture sharpening is applied (most getting some by default); and it assumes "correct" for TIFF's and PSD's as a matter of course. So where exactly is the dynamic? it's occurrence seems vastly overstated. And in the presumably few cases it assumes "incorrect" sharpening, how does it adjust output sharpening accordingly? Up or down? Does "incorrect" infer too much or too little? Radius too high or too low? Etcetera.

[Chain]

I think you just misunderstood him (although I personally do not have LR so I haven't checked).

The "dynamic" settings he reffered to in LR was that LR will at print (export?) time apply output sharpening depending on what you are outputting for (optimal sharpening depends on paper type, printer type, resolution, etc.).

[Flashtones]

He specifically stated that output sharpening is based on capture sharpening.

[AKMac]

Why don't you do a simple test for yourself. It will only take you a few minutes. Then you can post your results.
I get the impression there is a misunderstanding regarding whether or not some form of analysis is conducted by the software prior to it applying a sharpening setting.
I have done a simple test with ACR 4.6. When you open a raw file for the first time it automatically sets a 25% level of sharpening. If you open any other file it doesn't automatically set any sharpening. The only "assumption" (and I think it is the use of that word which is perhaps at the centre of the confusion) which is made is that a raw file will have had no sharpening applied, and will probably need some - and that 25% will probably be a fairly useful, safe starting point.

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

My questions are around output sharpening, which you say is based on Capture sharpening: when Lightroom knows what Capture sharpening was applied it does one thing. When it doesn't it does another.

A better way to rephrase this would be to say, when LR conducts output sharpening, its with capture sharpening expected. Its compounded.

Theoretically, in both cases it can assume that "correct" sharpening was applied. In the case of RAW files it can assume that any Capture sharpening applied (none, default or custom) was "correct". Ditto in the case of TIFF's/PSD's.

Yes, if the user applies sharpening in Develop, LR 'knows' this of course. It applies this in a specific and preferred processing order (for example after noise reduction).

So in what way specifically is it addressing the two situations differently? For instance, for any given output sharpening choice, assuming same size files, is it applying more or less sharpening to TIFF's/PSD's relative to raws?

In terms of the output sharpening, and routines (the settings you ask for in the Print module) its the same. That is, what you ask for in Print is applied to the data however, if you sharpen say a TIFF, outside of LR, its not necessarily applied in the preferred order (what if you apply noise reduction in Develop)? Its not applied to linear encoded data because you did the sharpening in Photoshop. It may not have been conducted in high bit. So while you can apply 'correct' capture sharpening first outside of LR, apply print sharpening in Print and get a perfectly acceptable print, its a bit more iffy.

The closest way to capture sharpen a rendered image in Photoshop but then apply output sharpening in LR would be to use PhotoKit Sharpener for capture sharpening in PS because Adobe implemented those routines for Lightroom.

[Flashtones]

Phew, some clarity:

Regarding how LR treats Output sharpening for Raws vs Rendered images:

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

In terms of the output sharpening, and routines (the settings you ask for in the Print module) its the same.

Thank you!

-----

From Luminous Landscape:

[quote author=digitaldog link=topic=48069.msg401001#msg401001 date=1289314502]
Because you don’t need to IF you did an adequate job of capture sharpening of which the output sharpening is also based upon.
[/quote]

From RetouchPro:

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

LR and ACR use a sharpening workflow based on the Fraser piece. There is Capture Sharpening and Output Sharpening. The Output Sharpening is based on the Capture Sharpening.

No offense, but the language could use some work. Why not just say that LR's Output sharpening is... you know... Output sharpening? (And not Capture/Creative/Output sharpening rolled into one.) I think people can get that - if they don't already assume it - a lot more clearly than saying Output sharpening is "based upon" Capture sharpening.

In LR/ACR Output sharpening is based on your Output Settings, not on Capture sharpening. It expects an already Capture/Creative sharpening image, but it does not alter the Output sharpening based on that Capture sharpening.

Correct?

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

No offense, but the language could use some work. Why not just say that LR's Output sharpening is... you know... Output sharpening? (And not Capture/Creative/Output sharpening rolled into one.)

Why said otherwise? LR's output sharpening is output sharpening, but capture sharpening is still part of the full process.

I think people can get that - if they don't already assume it - a lot more clearly than saying Output sharpening is "based upon" Capture sharpening.

Because it is. Its an expected process in the workflow. Output sharpening without capture sharpening is suboptimal.

In LR/ACR Output sharpening is based on your Output Settings, not on Capture sharpening.
Correct?[/QUOTE]

No. Its based both. If you apply output sharpening with or without develop sharpening, you get different results.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

Its based both. If you apply output sharpening with or without develop sharpening, you get different results.

What you say is correct, but I just want to point out that in both cases the actual output sharpening that is applied is identical, but you get different results simply because the image without input sharpening doesn't have optimal sharpening.

The confusion was caused by the misunderstanding that the output sharpening "knew" what sharpening settings had been used earlier and adapted to them.

[andrewrodney]

I thought post 22 and 25 were clear:

LR or ACR has no idea nor could it that someone in the past applied sharpening. Or if the camera applied it (which many do).

It makes no assumptions it can't.

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

I thought post 22 and 25 were clear:

LR or ACR has no idea nor could it that someone in the past applied sharpening. Or if the camera applied it (which many do).

It makes no assumptions it can't.

No, not clear at all. The insinuation is that for raw images where capture sharpening was applied in LR/ACR it would know and could make assumptions based on that information and adjust output sharpening accordingly.

Here's an imperfect analogy: Imagine I tell you my TimeGenious group consulted on the new alarm component of a super duper clock. I tell you that the time the alarm goes off is based on the time you go to bed, so you'll get the "correct" amount of sleep! This raises many eyebrows and you ask many logical questions like: How does the clock know what time you went to bed, how does it adjust accordingly, and what does it do if you sleep in a different room? etc. I keep answering that if you don't sleep in that room it can't know, so it's best to stay in "the pipeline" to get the correct result. Additional pointed questions ensue until finally you get it out of me that in reality the alarm goes off at the time you tell it to regardless of when you went to bed, got the "correct" amount of sleep, or slept in another room altogether. It's based on output settings, not the time you go to bed. Okay, maybe it knows if it's a weekday or weekend, or rings louder or softer based on the amount of daylight (or lack thereof) in the room, so there is intelligence going on there, but it is not based on "correct" sleep or bedtime.

I'm sorry Andrew, but as a member of PixelGenius - the group that worked with Adobe on the sharpening implementation - you have to expect that people will be listening very closely to your words on the subject. And as an author, seminar provider and educator (i.e. communicator) I'd expect you to be a lot clearer on the subject than you've been.

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

No. Its based both. If you apply output sharpening with or without develop sharpening, you get different results.

See, you're still doing it. The LR workflow includes Capture and Output Sharpening. Together they constitute part of a whole, but they do not interface with each other, they operate independently. One's effect is not based on the settings of the other, but together they are based on the concept of a two or three pass sharpening approach. As a user you should expect best results from using both, but there is no intelligence built into the program to analyze "correctness" and automate the algorithms of one relative to the other.

Similarly, the time you set your alarm to go off is not based on the time you go to bed, it's based on the time you need to wake up. Together they constitute a whole approach to getting the "correct" amount of sleep, but realistically they operate independent of one another. The alarm isn't "based on" the time you went to bed, as it doesn't reference it for effect.

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

No, not clear at all. The insinuation is that for raw images where capture sharpening was applied in LR/ACR it would know and could make assumptions based on that information and adjust output sharpening accordingly.

Insinuation no, assumption on your part, probably.

See, you're still doing it. The LR workflow includes Capture and Output Sharpening. Together they constitute part of a whole, but they do not interface with each other, they operate independently.

No, together they work as a sharpening workflow. They operate dependently.

One's effect is not based on the settings of the other, but together they are based on the concept of a two or three pass sharpening approach.

Again no, not in LR. The result of the sharpening upon output is based on the concept of two a step sharpening process where step two is based on step one being applied (correctly).

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

Insinuation no, assumption on your part, probably.

No, together they work as a sharpening workflow. They operate dependently.

Again no, not in LR. The result of the sharpening upon output is based on the concept of two a step sharpening process where step two is based on step one being applied (correctly).

Surely it's my failing, but I just find your explanations muddying.

It's like a coffee maker that has a slow/fast brew option. The strength of one's brew can be effected by factors of both input and output. On the input side: the strength/amount of the beans applied. On the output side: the speed of the brew process, with slow yielding a richer brew.

One can say that the brew speed will be "based" on the correct amount/strength of beans applied. But in truth, it's based on where you set the switch to: fast or slow. The whole concept of a "correct" amount/strength of beans is arbitrary in the first place as it's purely a matter of personal preference.

Conceptually, of course the beans and the brew speed are related in concept and, hopefully practice, but the two operate independent of one another and are solely user controlled. There's nothing unique about that coffee maker in that regard.

I know we both get this, I just find your explanations far more ambiguous.

[AKMac]

I am fairly new to this forum, so I'm not sure about the protocol/etiquette. Do I try to reintroduce the question about which are the best sharpening plugins here, or has this thread taken on a momentum of its own and should I reintroduce the question in another thread?

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

Surely it's my failing, but I just find your explanations muddying.

For the sake of the OP, and everyone else who as yet doesn't find the explanations muddyling, time to move on.

[AKMac]

Thanks.
What I've discovered (subjectively!) since first asking the question is the following.
I really like Focalblade - it gives a whole range of options to suit different scenarios, levels of expertise and visual awareness. It is also relatively inexpensive. I gave Nik a swerve for that reason - I didn't see it doing anything to merit the extra expense in the sharpening department the way they have undoubtedly earned their keep with the likes of Silver Efex etc.
I was very impressed with the comprehensiveness of the Photokit software, and its rationale, but I found the interface too basic and non UF.
I tried Topaz, which looks a bit gimmicky on the surface. I tried a number of their plugins and was pleasantly surprised by the sharpening effect I could get through a combination of careful deblurring using InFocus, followed up by sharpening. I think FocalBlade does deblurring as well.
This was an eye-opener. I hadn't used deblurring before. I found it seemed to clean up and "pull in" the blurred areas surrounding objects.
Regarding my workflow (I don't actually have one strictly speaking - I am still jumping back and forth) -
I like the silkiness of the CAPTURE sharpening provided by Adobe Camera Raw.
I am currently exploring a number of (seemingly infinite) approaches for CREATIVE sharpening and associated effects offered by the Topaz plug-ins.
I think I will stick with focal blade as my main sharpener for OUTPUT.

That's as far as I have got. I am not an expert in sharpening but I feel that by simply trying out and comparing these plugins I have significantly developed in my eye.

I would interested to hear what other people have discovered. And I suspect I will probably change my mind anyway as my experience outside the USM box expands.


AK

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

For the sake of the OP, and everyone else who as yet doesn't find the explanations muddyling, time to move on.

Sure thing.