Plug-In: Best Sharpening Plug-ins

[AKMac]

What are the best sharpening plugins? Is it best to buy a dedicated sharpener,or to buy a more comprehensive enhancement plugin?

(I guess this must have been discussed at length already, perhaps someone might direct me to the appropriate thread)

[lurch]

Adobe Camera Raw version 6 - not exactly a plugin, but very good.

[plugsnpixels]

See a large list of sharpening options here, under "Sharpening".

Check out Topaz Detail first, followed by FocalBlade.

[artofretouching]

You can find a comparison between Photoshop Unsharp Mask and Perfect Resize. It can give you an idea of how the different sharpening tools are bear sites, for different situations. It its on my to do list, to create a comprehensive sharpening comparison. There are just so many tools available.

http://www.theartofretouching.com/bl...perfect-resize

[AKMac]

I'm currently checking out demos from Topaz and Focalblade.

I already use ACR v4.6 with Photoshop CS3 and I do find that very smooth, simple and effective for backed-off input sharpening.

I was initially a bit put off by the presets in Topaz which, when I zoomed in to a 100% view of a face, looked like a catalogue of rather nasty skin diseases.

So far I like the look of the interface in Focalblade, but it does seem overly complex, and I hope I don't get bogged down in slider-tweaking and lose the plot, which is something I suffer badly from.

Any further advice will be gratefully received.

[plugsnpixels]

My screenshot shows FocalBlade Expert mode. There are also Easy and Classic modes, with very few and a few more options.

As for the Topaz presets, no problem. You can dial down all settings as you wish.

For faces/portraits in particular you probably don't want to sharpen too much anyway. If you go in the opposite direction, Imagenomic Portraiture is one of the best.

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by lurch

Adobe Camera Raw version 6 - not exactly a plugin, but very good.

OR Lightroom which is based on the work of the late Bruce Fraser:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

[Chain]

Not actually a plugin or 3rd party program, but here's the sharpening actions I've created:

http://chain.deviantart.com/#/d2vvh07

I probably should have included actions for creating edge masks... but I didn't. ;p

[AKMac]

Thanks to all so far. I'm working carefully through the information posted. I like Gaussian sharpen action from Chain but don't understand how the steps work - can you enlighten me?
Also - as I mentioned before, there is something simple and elegant about the ACR sharpening effect, and I use it a lot at the input stage. I don't know if it is the sharpening algorithms themselves or the nature of the unadulterated raw file, but it always looks SO good. Is there any way of using ACR 4.6 to sharpen for output, i.e. how do I get my edited image back into the ACR environment after it is no longer in a digital neg format.
(I get the feeling I'm going to be doing that Homer Simpson "Doh" thing shortly!)

[Chain]

Adobe Camera Raw can open TIFF and JPEG files, so you can use it to edit files that are not actually raw. Right click the file in Bridge and choose open with camera raw.

My sharpening actions were based off the work done in this giant technical thread over at http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=439098 – it focuses mainly on frequency separation. Very cool stuff, but I won't get into it here more than I have to.

My action will first blur a copy of your image with the radius you decide (this is effectively the sharpen radius). Now we have a sharp image, and a slightly blurry image. We then use Apply Image to make the difference between the two into a layer (it will be mostly gray, and the settings differ for 8 and 16 bit images). Just using this "high frequency/detail" layer blended using Linear Light above the blurry image = the original image (cool?). Other filters besides GB can be used, but I find GB most useful for sharpening. I remove the blurred layer (or replaced it immediately) and the "high frequency" layer now effectively sharpens the details of the below image. Lower opacity to lower the strength. It provides slightly more accurate sharpening than the High Pass method (but is more complicated). Some color detail exists in the high frequency layer, so finally it is desaturated (with blending mode color) to avoid enhancing color noise. Tip: You can also use a clipped Curves layer to increase/decrease contrast on the high frequency layer to increase/decrease the effect.

Turned into an action it's just a click (and pick the wanted radius). Then reduce or increase the strength (opacity/contrast). Can easily be combined with masks (for example an edge mask).

[Chain]

Forgot to point out; on 16-bit images you can use the filter Smart Sharpen with the "more accurate" box checked for good sharpening as well (if the image is 8 bit that option creates some noise for unknown reasons).

[AKMac]

Thanks - I think I've got the gist of that, but I'll need to work through it to fully understand. I didn't realise you could take a jpeg into ACR. I shall do so immediately.

[Chain]

I'd highly recommend TIFF (w/lossless LZW compression) over JPEG if you have the choice. Because JPEG will reduce image quality, and the artefacts could interfere a bit with your sharpening or other adjustments.

[AKMac]

Yet more questions....

Do you think it is actually a good idea to convert from PSD to TIFF for the final sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw? Or is ACR sharpening only desirable/better at the input end of the workflow.

Is ACR v6 superior to v4.6 in the sharpening department?

Of the TIFF options........

NONE (default?)
LZW
ZIP
JPEG

Interleaved (default?)
Per Channel

IBM PC (default?)
MacIntosh

......which settings are preferable? I am working on a Mac.

[Chain]

TIFF:

For the TIFF format, go for the default settings as they should be most commonly supported (although it will not matter most of the time), but for compression always choose LZW. It is lossless and will on average cut the size in roughly half (varies a lot).
ZIP and JPEG in a TIFF file is not that well supported by other software (and JPEG is lossy).

Note: If you have transparency in the file and want it to be preserved when the file is used in e.g. InDesign you will also have to check "Transparency".

Camera Raw:

Personally I only use ACR for importing raw files and would perform the final sharpening in Photoshop (I fell I have much better control, but sharpening is a bit up to individual taste). That said, ACR can definately sharpen just fine for both input and output (the main difference is output sharpening for print is usually a bit stronger and has a larger radius). I do not remember the possibilities in 4.6, but it might miss the newer masking options. Adobe has recently (CS4 or 5?) done some great improvements to their noise reduction, so the newer version might be a good upgrade just for that.

[Chain]

Ps: Wanna see something cool? Run the Surface Blur version of the sharpening with a high radius (warning: SLOW). It will do a really neat local contrast enhancement that looks quite different from the Gaussian/regular version (milder on the edges, allowing you to crank it up more).

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by AKMac

Yet more questions....

Do you think it is actually a good idea to convert from PSD to TIFF for the final sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw? Or is ACR sharpening only desirable/better at the input end of the workflow.

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. If you bring in a rendered image (TIFF, PSD) the question becomes, was it ever sharpened in the first place? With a raw workflow, which is what ACR and LR are primarily based upon, there is no initial sharpening done, its raw. Capture sharpening is used to overcome the softness associated with digitizing an image. Its gentle and not output based. Output sharpening is based on the output size and device. You simply can’t treat a 4x5 going to an ink jet the same as a 13x19 going to the same device let alone a vastly different kind of technology (halftone, contone, screen).

Output sharpening in LR and ACR are optimized for ink jet output!

I seem to recall there was a RetouchPro Webinar about sharpening and all the pitfalls and issues <g>.

[AKMac]

Well, I've worked through a lot today. Many thanks for all the info. Much appreciated.

[Flashtones]

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. If you bring in a rendered image (TIFF, PSD) the question becomes, was it ever sharpened in the first place?

And...how does LR/ACR handle this question?

Maybe some user control would be in order, or at least more transparency as to what's going on behind the curtain.

[Chain]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

And...how does LR/ACR handle this question?

If you are bringing your image back into ACR or LR for the sole purpose of doing output sharpening you should already have done your input sharpening earlier in your workflow. If not, please do.

That being said, I do believe going back to ACR for output sharpening would be unnecessary since you can do excellent sharpening in Photoshop (although you don't have such neat masking sliders). My final sharpening (for effect and output) I always do in layers on top of my document (using the actions I linked earlier). Then I have full manual control and can mask it just the way I want if need be (easier in Photoshop than ACR).

[AKMac]

When i asked earlier in this thread about bringing an image back into ACR for final sharpening, I was interested in doing so for the purposes of comparing the qualities of various sharpeners. I didn't conceive of it as part of a realistic workflow.
But I am still intrigued by the quality of ACR sharpening, and can't put my finger on why it "feels" so good. Is it the sliders, the algorithm, the nature of the file content, or simply my imagination?

[andrewrodney]

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).

Yes, you can apply output sharpening in Photoshop just as well as you can in LR or ACR if you know the correct values for all permutations of output type and size. That's the rub! One size absolutely does not fit all. Even if you look at LR's output for ink jet, there's a difference in handing the data for a specifically sized print and resolution (it does that into account how much you send to the driver, native or otherwise) for matt versus glossy papers.

If you wanted to spend a huge amount of time and media figuring out the specific values to enter for differing print sizes to just those two kinds of media, you could. Or you could just let LR do the job for you.

ACR/LR sharpening 'feels good' because it is good. Someone (Bruce Fraser initially) took the months to test differing sharpening routines to differing devices and at differing sizes, based on ideal capture sharpening, which he also worked out. Then Adobe put the routines for PhotoKit Sharpener into ACR/LR and further tweaked (because a big, big difference here is Photoshop deals with gamma corrected data, LR/ACR deals with linear encoded data). And the icing on the cake is in LR/ACR, the routines are totally non destructive and very fast as they are simply composed of metadata.

Now you want to go farther down the rabbit hole? Note that in LR, you have the ability to set the resolution with a check box and entry field. The output sharpening as based on all the above parameters AND LR's ability to interpolate data being sent to the driver which can affect the quality of the output. Long thread warning coming. This post on Lula is worth the read for anyone printing out of LR and how this check box/field can affect the outcome:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/fo...topic=54798.60

[Flashtones]

Andrew, I'm still confused. You said that LR/ACR's output sharpening is based on capture sharpening, and then raised the question of what LR is to do with files worked on outside of LR where it can not know what sharpening may have already been applied.

What assumptions does LR/ACR in fact make about the TIFF/PSD file? Does it apply more, less or equal sharpening to a same size raw that's never left the pipeline?

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by Chain

If you are bringing your image back into ACR or LR for the sole purpose of doing output sharpening you should already have done your input sharpening earlier in your workflow. If not, please do.

That being said, I do believe going back to ACR for output sharpening would be unnecessary since you can do excellent sharpening in Photoshop (although you don't have such neat masking sliders). My final sharpening (for effect and output) I always do in layers on top of my document (using the actions I linked earlier). Then I have full manual control and can mask it just the way I want if need be (easier in Photoshop than ACR).

The issue probably pertains more to LR than ACR. Many people use LR to manage all their images, RAW or otherwise, for the convenience of cataloging them and managing all sorts of output/export resizing/converting operations.

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

Andrew, I'm still confused. You said that LR/ACR's output sharpening is based on capture sharpening, and then raised the question of what LR is to do with files worked on outside of LR where it can not know what sharpening may have already been applied.

What assumptions does LR/ACR in fact make about the TIFF/PSD file? Does it apply more, less or equal sharpening to a same size raw that's never left the pipeline?

It makes no assumptions it can't. The idea is to capture sharpen the raw data in Develop, then when printing, that data is passed to the Print module for output sharpening at the size you specify for the print template. The workflow assumes no sharpening at all, which is what one would encounter with raw data. OR it assumes you capture sharpened correctly elsewhere if LR is referencing the rendered data, then it will apply, again, the correct output sharpening. See the Fraser piece which covers the concept of a "sharpening workflow".

Http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

The workflow assumes no sharpening at all, which is what one would encounter with raw data. OR it assumes you capture sharpened correctly elsewhere if LR is referencing the rendered data, then it will apply, again, the correct output sharpening.

Sorry to be dense but which is it? It assumes "no" sharpening or "correct" sharpening for TIFF/PSD's?

[andrewrodney]

Originally Posted by Flashtones

Sorry to be dense but which is it? It assumes "no" sharpening or "correct" sharpening for TIFF/PSD's?

There are two rounds of sharpening. You can either implement Capture sharpening in Develop, then Print sharpening (two rounds) OR you can correctly sharpen outside of LR and have no capture sharpening applied in Develop (settings are zero) and then apply Print sharpening.

[Chain]

I believe what andrew said is that it assumes no sharpening on data when adjusting images (as raw images should be unsharpened to start with), and it assumes correctly sharpened images when printing (it then applies correct output sharpening).

Hmm... Maybe it's time for me to try out Lightroom.

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by andrewrodney

There are two rounds of sharpening. You can either implement Capture sharpening in Develop, then Print sharpening (two rounds) OR you can correctly sharpen outside of LR and have no capture sharpening applied in Develop (settings are zero) and then apply Print sharpening.

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.

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.

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?

Putting aside what it's thinking for the moment - rubber meets the road - what is it actually doing?

[Flashtones]

Originally Posted by Chain

I believe what andrew said is that it assumes no sharpening on data when adjusting images (as raw images should be unsharpened to start with), and it assumes correctly sharpened images when printing (it then applies correct output sharpening).

Hmm... Maybe it's time for me to try out Lightroom.

I'd have a better idea of what it's thinking if I knew what it was doing.