Sharpening Test (Systems Compared)

[phili1]

Everyone has a question as to what is the best sharpening system to use.

So I have three of them,4 with Photoshop and used them to sharpen the following link.

The three are
1- Miranda Intellesharpen.
2- Magic focus.
3- Photokit ( reviewed on Luminous Landscapes.

I am leaning towards Photkit because of it's ability to stack different types of sharpening as well as the ability to also sharpen for out put ( printing).

You be the judge, which one do you like, they are all close.

At this point I saw some work with Magic Focus that was awsome but I have not been able to duplicate it. I will keep trying.

http://www.pbase.com/phili1/sharpening

[Pekka]

My favourite is Photokit (although it produces very big files), but often simple USM works really well.

[gmitchel]

Phili1:

Before you spend $100, you should try My TLR Sharpening Toolkit. It is a free download. The toolkit is a sophisticated Photoshop action set for sharpening images based on the same three-pass sharpening philosophy in Photokit Sharpener, although it can also be used for single-pass or two-pass sharpening. I engineered this toolkit to include the best features of commercial sharpening tools, like Focal Blade and Photokit Sharpener. Features include:

• Sharpen with Highpass Filter or USM sharpening.

• Sharpen edges and surfaces separately (or either alone).

• Sharpen light and dark pixels separately.

• Generate masks using luminosity or color boundaries or a composite of the two.

• Brush in creative sharpening/blurring.

• Blend If settings protect against sharpening highlights and shadows.

• All sharpening is done non-destructively using layers.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools/TLRSharpeningToolkit.htm

The Toolkit comes with illustrated instructions in PDF.

I also have tutorials, tips, and a learning gallery on my site to help you with sharpening. All of it is freely available to all.

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/Tutorials/PutAFineEdgeOnYourSharpeningSkills.pdf

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/LearningGalleries/SharpeningToolkit/SharpeningToolkit.htm

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/TipOfTheWeek/2004OCT11/2004OCT11.htm

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/TipOfTheWeek/2004NOV01/2004NOV01.htm

http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/DigitalDarkroom/TipOfTheWeek/2004NOV29/2004NOV29.htm

Have a happy New Years!

Cheers,

Mitch

[phili1]

Thanks I already paid for it.

[phili1]

I just added MIranda's CSPro sharpen for the 20D and it is great, does a good job.
go to the above site and let me know what you think.

[flowe]

Hi all,

phili1, I hope you don't mind me downloading some of your samples and adding one more to them.
Please go to this site: http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/roro_08.htm

Pictures #1-4 are phili1' samples and #5 is his #1 sharpened by other means. For most comfortable comparison, you can switch between any two pictures just as you like.

This requires JavaScript to work. If you are not too keen on this, you can download picture #5 independently from http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/img/flag_alternate.jpg But then comparison and evaluation are not that easy and conclusive.

I'm fully aware that all samples depend on individual and arbitrary settings and these might not be the best possible, but some hints as to the different performances may still be valid.

I don't want to tell yet what tool I used to sharpen #5 - and this not for any personal or even commercial reasons. I just hope for some "blind" and unprejudiced assessment of the relative merits. If in the end you may want to know, because it work well for you, there will be no reason not to tell.

Comments?
flowe

PS: phili1, I've read your picture data: 800mm at 1/30s and ISO1600... - amazing!

[RinkRat]

Hi all,

I don't want to tell yet what tool I used to sharpen #5 - and this not for any personal or even commercial reasons. I just hope for some "blind" and unprejudiced assessment of the relative merits. If in the end you may want to know, because it work well for you, there will be no reason not to tell.

Comments?
flowe

Do tell, Flowe. I promise, I will not tell another soul. ;)

What is it with the USM sample that makes it very different from the other 3 sharpening attempts?

Thanks

[phili1]

Flowe: I Posted this because I downloaded $200 worth of and found me questioning the people who reviewed and praised them.

I had used unsharp mask and High pass for it before. For the last three days every once in a while I go back and do different test trying to give them the benifit of the doubt.

Luminous landscapes rate Photokit no. one and someone on this forum rates Magic focus No one. And others swear by Fres Mirandas program best and I have both. I see very little difference between them. Photkit is my favorite over the others rigth now.

Now you have another system and I have to say I like yours the best. I see 2 things yours did that the others did not. The pole became sharper and the Flag smoother, a defeinite improvement over all.

I also have to say I would love to know how you did the comparison system it is awsome.

Rink Rat. I guess you like USM but I have issues with it. In my attempt I see things going on in the tree. Some people know how to use it different then I do.

What I am hoping to do is produce something for a sticky so others can benifit from it and not spend bad money. If we can come up with photoshop system we can build a tutorial for people.So jump in and help.

Flowe if you want to give us a hint it would be appreciated.

[RinkRat]

Rink Rat. I guess you like USM but I have issues with it. In my attempt I see things going on in the tree. Some people know how to use it different then I do.

What I am hoping to do is produce something for a sticky so others can benifit from it and not spend bad money. If we can come up with photoshop system we can build a tutorial for people.So jump in and help.

Flowe if you want to give us a hint it would be appreciated.
phili1: I actually like Flowe's sharpening the best. I was just wondering what is different about the USM version. Is that an example of purple fringing, or chromatic something-or-other? (or some other term I am obviously not aware of) The edges seem "brighter".

For my files, I go back & forth between High Pass, & USM. It seems like flowe's version beats both of those. If flowe would only give up the secret... :)

[Scottes]

Is that an example of purple fringing, or chromatic something-or-other? (or some other term I am obviously not aware of) The edges seem "brighter".

This is fairly common with strong USM. Sharpening increases contrast. More sharpening can push the contrast too much, resulting in very bright-to-dark edges - often too bright, as you're seeing here. This can be lessened and controlled better by using a duplicate layer, sharpening that, then using a Blend If on the dupe layer. (Photokit does this, as well as gmitchel's Sharpening Toolkit.) The control allowed is excellent, but of course takes more work and a bit more understanding.

I find that Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen II also pushes too much contrast far too often. FM is good for low to medium sharpening requirements IMHO, but once an image needs "a lot" (relative term) of sharpening the resulting bright edges are too much.


I have to say that I also like Flowe's version the best. But I have to add that both PhotoKit and Gmitchel's Toolkit could do the same exact thing. I have no doubt in my mind that either could reproduce the same quality of sharpening, but I'll also admit that a decent amount of knowledge, skill, and experience would be required with either. I'm very curious about Flowe's method, and extremely curious about it's ease of implementation.

[phili1]

Scottes: I agree and I am trying different settings but can not duplicate his results as of yet.

I am also fooling a round with selective sharpening and have gotten even better results using find edges and masks, a tutorial in photoshop help.

Any suggestions you have about using Photokit let me know.

[Scottes]

Any suggestions you have about using Photokit let me know.

It's been a long while since I downloaded the Photokit demo. From what I remember it seemed pretty darned intuitive to me after reading thier tutorial/help. But then again I read all of Bruce Fraser's articles on sharpening as well as the info in "Real World Photoshop CS" as well as Gmitchel's sharpening info on his web site, and I think something on Luminous Landscapes or some other site. So, at the time, I was pretty in tune to the process. "Intuitive" may not be the most accurate term... :-)


But that was 6 months ago and I've done nothing but web images since then, so FM is about all I've used. I've got to get off my butt and attack the last 6 months of stuff to get printed....

[gmitchel]

Luminous landscapes rate Photokit no. one and someone on this forum rates Magic focus No one. And others swear by Fres Mirandas program best and I have both. I see very little difference between them. Photkit is my favorite over the others rigth now.

That's not what Michael Reichmann said.

He compared Focal Blade and Photokit Sharpener and concluded:

"The obvious question is — which one is better, PK Sharpener of FocalBlade? It isn't a cop-out for me to say that neither one is better than the other. They are both at the head of the class, though they are quite different in how they are used and what they demand from the user."

Then he said this:

"If you are want the most intensive hands-on control over every possible sharpening parameter, then FocalBlade is your preferred choice. If you'd rather have a somewhat simpler approach (though not at all simple), with equally impressive final results, then PK Sharpener is the way to go. For 90% of users PK Sharpener will provide the preferred workflow and is easier to use."

As one who has written his own actions that employ the same method as Photokit Sharpener and added features (and even had the folks at Photokit borrow a couple from me) *AND* who has used PK Sharpener and owns Focal Blade, I can assure you that Photokit Sharpener is not #1. Focal Blade gives you more control. For crafting the very best image, Focal Blade is superior to PK Sharpener, IMHO. If you are serious about image quality, you want control, not generic presets, IMHO.

People have a lot more choices than PK Sharpener and Fred Miranda's plug-in.

Cheers,

Mitch

[gmitchel]

I find that Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen II also pushes too much contrast far too often. FM is good for low to medium sharpening requirements IMHO, but once an image needs "a lot" (relative term) of sharpening the resulting bright edges are too much.

I have to say that I also like Flowe's version the best. But I have to add that both PhotoKit and Gmitchel's Toolkit could do the same exact thing. I have no doubt in my mind that either could reproduce the same quality of sharpening, but I'll also admit that a decent amount of knowledge, skill, and experience would be required with either. I'm very curious about Flowe's method, and extremely curious about it's ease of implementation.

Scottes:

You are right. Sharpening is more art and craft than science. It takes a lot of practice to sharpen images sufficiently without adding unnecessary artifacts.

PK Sharpener takes less knowledge than my action sets because they do have presets. Bruce Fraser et al. invested a lot of time developing those presets. More than Fred Miranda, it seems.

Unless Fred Miranda's plug-in behaves differently than his Intellisharpen actions, all it does is a handful of USMs with progressively more aggressive settings. His customizable actions added edge masking. To use those customizable actions also requires that you know what you are doing with USM settings.

I am working on a training CD for sharpening. It will have lessons for the various techniques included in my action set and for several others, also. About 15 lessons altogether. Hopefully, it will be ready in several weeks.

Cheers,

Mitch

[phili1]

Well the report I read was a recent one on Photokit and I rememeber him saying that he was surprised at the advanced version and based on that he said it was one of the b est.

To answer the question and reply about USM, that is my complaint, I see some people get it to do wonderous things, but there is not one article I can find that gives a how to tutorial. It does bring up artifacts if you over sharpen it. I did find an article about using maskes and tried it but it was about the same as other methods.

My reason for this thread is to hopefully make a sticky for people to go to so they do not have to spend $300 + on software that does little or nothing.

G MItchell, you seem to know what you are doing and you might be right about his comments, I can't get on the sight to reread, but I have been know to fast read wrong.

With that said can't we some how develop something of a comparison system showing everyone just what each system can or can not do.

So far The systems I have tested ( bought) Focus Magic - Photokit _ Intellihance - Canon Cs Pro & of course USM Photoshop.

Her is my find:

Focus Magic - It lets you pick the area to adjust, with up-down adjustment clicks. It also lets you adjust panning blur ( I have not been able to figure this out yet) but in both cases slight adjustments have produced unreal photo's. It changes the whole look.

Intellehance - It makes a decent adjustment which is adjustable but the improvements are marginal.

Canon Cs pro - Is an imporovement over Intelehance but by much, I was hoping for a better one but it is cheap.

Photokit - I like it becasue you can stack the different systems of sharpening. Pro Capture lets you do adjustment to light and dark masks but I can not see a drastic difference when I do it. Then you have Creative which gives you different USM type sharpening, edge,Luminous etc.

I think the problem with the normal person using USM is they have to do it in Layers a little at a time, I will give it a try.

Meanwhile if you have anymore insight let people know.

I did find a reference to the Reichmann article:
PKS has been described as the 'the finest image sharpening product ever produced' by Michael Reichmann in his review for 'The Luminous Landscape' and it does seem to leave little room for improvement in its basic philosophy, although possibly it could use rather more automation. It would for example be possible for the capture sharpening stage to make use of EXIF data and camera model and ISO to suggest suitable possibilities for at least the more popular pro (and prosumer) digital cameras.

[phili1]

I am just curious GMitchell: Is this an article you posted on Yahoo.

From: "Glenn Mitchell" <gmitchel850@y...>
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 9:59 am
Subject: [Digital BW] FocalBlade (was Re: Miranda Actions)


ADVERTISEMENT


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
<Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> Mitch,
>
> I agree. FocalBlade is a very nice product which I evaluated
before going with PhotoKit Sharpener. I went with PhotoKit because

[gmitchel]

As the message says, Alan Huntley went with Photokit Sharpener. Not me.I would rather give away my 1Ds MkII than give one dime to PixelGenius.

I have reviewed their free trial. That's it. I do not like presets, and PK Sharpener makes extensive use of them.

Bruce Fraser and his partners at Pixel Genius also used to argue in favor of custom settings to obtain optimum sharpening -- until they came out with PK Sharpener. Then they started advocating presets, extolling the virtues of the presets they crafted.

I created my action set because I find three of the partners in PixelGenius to be insufferable. Two, in particular, are very abusive to people on forums like DPReview, AdobeForums, etc. (The other three partners in PixelGenius have never been cross with anyone on the Web that I've seen. )

One even quipped to a potential customer that if people did not like how PixelGenius does business, they could create their own actions by following Bruce Fraser's articles on CreativePro.com.

I decided to take them up on their offer. Create my own actions. Then go one step further and offer them for free.

I did follow the methodology Bruce describes. I enhanced it with features from Focal Blade, which was/is my choice for a sharpening add-in. I also added an enhanced mask that includes both luminosity and color edges, something unique to my action set and which does lead to an improved edge mask.

I've lost count of how many downloads from my site for the TLR Sharpening Toolkit. It was running 1000-1500 per week for a couple of months.

There are lots of tutorials on USM on the Web. Also, there are excellent descriptions in books by Michael Kieran, Katrin Eismann, etc.

As I mentioned, I am working on a video tutorial. My reticence is teaching people how to sharpen via video. My videos use high quality video, but video is not as sharp as high resolution images. It's easy to describe techniques and show steps, but to show a couple of images and say, "See how this one is sharper?" is iffy with video.

BTW, the comment you quote is someone's spin of what Michael Reichmann said. I quoted Michael straight from his review. ;)

I do agree with Michael Reichmann that 90% of digital photographers would prefer presets. Most probably use PS Elements and do some occasional/slight retouches of photos and have no desire to master sharpening. The presets produce results that are "good enough" for their tastes. I have no problem with that. It's a perfectly valid point-of-view.

I obsess over my images. I want to craft the best image my skills will allow. Presets are incompatible with that point-of-view. To craft the very best image possible, you need to take creative control over the sharpening process. An equally valid point-of-view, IMHO.

I rarely use Focal Blade these days. I only use it if I am pressed for time and I want a quick preview of a sharpened image. If I was a wedding photographer who needed to process hundreds of images every week, I would probably prefer something like Focal Blade, where I could get a sharpened image that is fine for its intended purpose with only a moment or two tweaking of some sliders.

Cheers,

Mitch

[F1_Fan]

I personally am quite happy with PS USM (using Canon's recommended USM settings or even slightly most conservative in some situations) for digital display. For printing I don't use any sharpening... I let Qimage (my printing app of choice) apply printer-specific levels of sharpening and the results are stunning.

[phili1]

MItch I down loaded yours and I am trying it but I have run into a snag. When I run Creative Highpass or USM Contour or dual it tells me the following:

Object brush soft round 45 pixels is not currently available. What is happening, I can't seem to figure it out. I know I have to paint in the sharpening .

OK I am not disputing anything, my problem is who to listen to. We read an article and buy based on that and find out it's not that great, that is why I started this to help inform those who do not know.

My big problem is I do not see any difinative results from anything. I see what people tell me they did and I do not get the same results. Maybe I am doing it all wrong, I do not know but I am trying to find out.

[Scottes]

I think that a very important part of Sharpening software is the "ease of use" versus "control" aspect, along with the learning curve. On one end you have ease of use, and that usually means a lack of control. The opposite is usually true on the other end. The learning curve is generally very small when easy to use, so it's not much of an issue, but more control also means more to learn.

Any two packages which allow for total control can produce the same image in the end. But that "total control" can be difficult or even impossible for some people to master. The packages that are easy to use will just about always fail on some images, or after the user gains experience and a more critical eye. Then it's time to upgrade, or to learn how to work around the times when it fails.

Except for Focus Magic, all sharpening programs that I know about are just shells for Photoshop's USM and several PS filters and methods. It just so happens that PS allows the most control, hands down, but is also the toughest to use and learn, hands down. So the idea with any of these is to automate and/or pre-set Photoshop's abilities. The more you automate the more you lose control. This is even more true for pre-sets.


A person skilled with sharpening in Photoshop alone will beat a newbie using the best sharpening program out there. Every single time.


I'd love to find a program that would initially automate the sharpening workflow and use a number of intelligent pre-sets while retaining the ability to tweak or modify or work around those presets and automation steps. Such a program would allow someone to continue using this program as they learned more about sharpening, since the experience would allow the user to recognize when certain steps or pre-sets needed changing for particular images.

I know that gmitchel's toolkit won't do this as there really aren't any pre-sets. I think that PhotoKit could do this, but I didn't study it in this way when I tried it. I think that FocalBlade could do this also. However, both PK and FB require *some* knowledge and have short but steep learning curves, so they're not truly beginner-level programs. (There's also niK Sharpener Pro which could fall into that category, but I've never really played with that, either.)


So to really compare sharpening products for a review, I think you have to look at several factors:

Base Knowledge Required
Learning Curve
Ease of Use
Maximum Control Allowed
Best Attainable Results (on difficult images)

Fred Miranda's stuff is going to excel at the first 3, but won't do well at the last two. Whereas Gmitchel's toolkit will "fail" miserably at the first 3 (it requires a lot of knowledge and has a learning curve) but it will absolutely excel at the last two. The trick is finding something in between - something that can allow you to quickly produce good images while allowing you control in order to consistently produce great images.

From what I've heard and recently researched because of this thread, the best answer (IMHO, AFAIK) to that last sentence is Focal Blade. I've tried enough of the others to know that they will eventually fail the "Max Control" and "Best Attainable" points before Focal Blade will fail them.

Once FB fails you the final answer right now is gmitchel's toolkit. PS is not the final answer because if FB fails you then you're at a point where you'll build your own toolkit that will work just like gmitchel's, though I'm sure it will be tweaked for you. If you're at this level you *will* build automation steps like Mitch did.


Please note: My comments on Focal Blade are from research, not experience. Also, I expect that FB does not do so well with the "ease of use" or "base knowledge required" points. I have yet to give Focal Blade a serious trial. But I will very soon, probably today.

[phili1]

Scotts,m I agree with what your are saying but not on G Mitchell's. His is difficult to learn and understand but when you delve into the results are impresive. I am impressed with the control I have with it.

Example: I tried his Capture high pass Lum Edge & HIgh pass Enhanced and I saw some difference but as I coninued to redo and redo I could see a change taking place. In this area I see that His is equal to Photokit and can not comment on Focal Blade.

But this is where I saw G Mitchells out perform the others. When I did the Creative Highpass and USM single contour after making several mistakes, I found that we have ultimate control to paint in sharpness. The important part is the opacity, 50% is a key, anymore and you can see artifacts. I found his does not change the contrast. What I did notice is it adds noise but Noise Ninja removes it. So far I am impressed.

I kow some find Focus MAgic good but I am having a hard time getting good results, maybe I am using it wrong.

Your comments and next to It what I found.

Base Knowledge Required ( You need allot, not for the none computer oriented)
Learning Curve ( I thing if G Mitchell builds his CD tutorial, It willl Help)
Ease of Use ( You can't get any easier then pushing a button)
Maximum Control Allowed ( Total in the creative stage, you can change the degree of USM & HIgh pass but caution is primary as it chage change it for the worst)
Best Attainable Results (on difficult images)

Here is a pic using Capture & Creative, I think he has someting good going here.

[Scottes]

I guess that I don't equate ease of use with just pushing a button. PKS's pre-sets for output sharpening, where you simply pick the type of printer and push the button, is very easy to use (that part anyway). But with gmitchel's kit there's some knowledge required for which masking method to use, for example. And then the actions sometimes stop waiting for you to adjust contrast/threshold for the mask - one has to know why they're adjusting the contrast.

Then again, knowing this is really part of Base Knowledge and/or Learning Curve. In the end all of them are easy to use once you learn it, so maybe "Ease of Use" shouldn't really be a criteria, since you generally just "push a button" for all of them, really.

[phili1]

Scotts, I agree with the out put part, you are right and I think if he has gone to this much labor, he will refine it.

I like his Capture the same as PK but love his Creative more. If we take a reasonably good picture PK quick fix is a good one but if it needs more G Mitchells Creative in my opinion is hard to beat.

As far as out put I use Qimage for printing. There output can't be beat. My prints are outstanding from this program. My problem is no matter how good you are you get soft images because of the situation you have to shoot in so some adjustment is needed. My finding's in life is that 1 thing does not always give you the total results, like imageing programs. You can't beat Photoshop but untill recently if you wanted to remove red eye, you need to have a simpler program. I still do not use photoshop to right a tilted building I use Picture window there program does it better.

So I think That for now my programs are Photokit and G mitchell's TLR.

I am still playing with Focus magics panning blur adjustment.

[gmitchel]

MItch I down loaded yours and I am trying it but I have run into a snag. When I run Creative Highpass or USM Contour or dual it tells me the following:

Object brush soft round 45 pixels is not currently available. What is happening, I can't seem to figure it out. I know I have to paint in the sharpening .

OK I am not disputing anything, my problem is who to listen to. We read an article and buy based on that and find out it's not that great, that is why I started this to help inform those who do not know.

My big problem is I do not see any difinative results from anything. I see what people tell me they did and I do not get the same results. Maybe I am doing it all wrong, I do not know but I am trying to find out.

You only have to paint in sharpening with the Creative Sharpening/Bluring actions. The other actions involve no painting whatsoever.

You can select a different brush, if you prefer. The action set will leave you with a sharpened layer with a black layer mask. Just paint with white at low opacity to paint in sharpening.

If you do not have a Soft Round 45 Pixel brush preset, you can turn off that action step and use your default brush. Use whatever brush you prefer.

I just removed the Soft Round 45 Pixel brush step from the creative actions. You can download an update, if you like.

Why is "great" the issue? No one has said that PK Sharpener is a poor tool. Disagreeing with your claim that it is #1 or that Michael Reichmann made such a claim is not the same as saying that PK Sharpener is a poor choice for sharpening.

You already spent your $100. You made your commitment. My comment was directed at possibly saving you or others $100. Not possible in your case, but it may save $$ for some others. ;)

Cheers,

Mitch

[gmitchel]

Scotts, I agree with the out put part, you are right and I think if he has gone to this much labor, he will refine it.

I do try to refine it as time allows. ;)

For example, you raised the issue about the Soft Round 45 pixel brush preset. I changed the action to remove the step from the Creative sharpening and bluring actions. Those steps contribute little and can cause people to think the action is not functional. I welcome constructive feedback and use it to make the actions better.

I also welcome refinements from others, too. Danny Raphael modified my TLR B&W Conversion Actions to include layer names for the various B&W filter effects. He shared it with me and generously allowed me to include them as part of the action set.

I welcome other suggestions to make the sharpening action set better, and I'm pleased you were able to obtain results you like. :)

Cheers,

Mitch

[gmitchel]

Please note: My comments on Focal Blade are from research, not experience. Also, I expect that FB does not do so well with the "ease of use" or "base knowledge required" points. I have yet to give Focal Blade a serious trial. But I will very soon, probably today.

Focal Blade is pretty easy to use. If you like presets, it has them. At the same time, you can start with those and still tweak the sliders.

The features from them that I incorporated were separate sharpening of dark/light contours and separate sharpening for edges/surfaces. Excellent features and easy to adjust in FB.

Another feature of FB I like is the ability to preview both sharpening for Web and for print with a button click.

Oh, and the ability to split the screen and see different sharpening settings side-by-side.

Focal Blade is definitely a great sharpening add-in. (You can even combine it with the Creative sharpening/blurring actions in my actionset for some additional localized sharpening. The Creative action for Localized Contrast Enhancement adds a nice touch to images and does not use a brush.)

Cheers,

Mitch

[phili1]

Thanks, I like your actions and figured out what my problem was. I like the idea you have to paint sharpness in, it lets you be selective as to what is sharp.

NIce job.

[gmitchel]

Phil:

Thank you for pointing out the issue with the brush preset. It was easy to alter the actions, once you mentioned your difficulty. The actions work better as a result.

I already uploaded the modified actionnset to my site. I sent a copy to Jim Lewis to post on ATNCentral.com, too.

If you have not tried it, try the Creative action for Localized Contrast Enhancement. It improves many images. I borrowed the idea from Michael Reichmann, who got it from Thomas Knoll. No brush is needed. Just run the action. I find 30,50,0 or 20,50,0 works well for most images.

Painting in sharpness, I first learned from Michael Kieran's book on color correction. PK Sharpener includes painted sharpening and blurring, too.

I'm not sure of the PK Sharpener implementation. Mine is pretty simple. Make a duplicate layer and apply Highpass/USM/Gaussian Blur. For USM, change the blend mode to Luminosity to avoid color shifts. Add a Conceal All layer mask. Select the brush tool, set the foreground to white, and make the layer mask active. Pretty simple! ;)

Cheers,

Mitch

[Scottes]

I'm not sure of the PK Sharpener implementation. Mine is pretty simple. Make a duplicate layer and apply Highpass/USM/Gaussian Blur. For USM, change the blend mode to Luminosity to avoid color shifts. Add a Conceal All layer mask. Select the brush tool, set the foreground to white, and make the layer mask active. Pretty simple!
PKS is extremely similar.

The processing of "painting in" anything is an awesome methodolgy for almost anything that changes the entire image. I use it for "dodge & burn" and sharpening and Local Contrast Enhancement and just about anything that changes the entire image, like sharpening or saturation. It is way cool.

[phili1]

Thanks MItch. I like the ability to adjust, your corrections work great.

You are no 1 on my hit parade.

[petermorell]

I've been using CrispImage Pro from www.softwhile.com for a while and find it quite good. Only about $75.

[CyberDyneSystems]

So we never heard back from Flowe did we.
I was thinking it was USM with some masking... but thats just a guess.

[phili1]

I was wondering where Flowe was as well. I think it might be mitch's, which I am loving right now. I love the ability to paint sharpness.

[flowe]

04.01.2005

Hi all

:lol: Nice you remembering me… I followed this discussion very closely and kept rewriting my post again and again - just now it runs 885 words… But with 30-odd posts in the thread it gets ever more difficult. So once more, my current state of error:

The most interesting single statement I found is from Scottes:

Except for Focus Magic, all sharpening programs that I know about are just shells for Photoshop's USM and several PS filters and methods. It just so happens that PS allows the most control, hands down, but is also the toughest to use and learn, hands down. So the idea with any of these is to automate and/or pre-set Photoshop's abilities. The more you automate the more you lose control. This is even more true for pre-sets. A person skilled with sharpening in Photoshop alone will beat a newbie using the best sharpening program out there. Every single time.

Somebody else mentioned the "Reichmann scale" with the 90% level, assumably dividing steadfast, competent and professional users of PSCS from the rest of the world. I humbly confess to be an amateur rating around 75% and using Paint Shop Pro. PSP stands for a lot of similar editors and - depending on dedication and experience - does a fairly good job. Just as I didn't buy a DSLR but just upgraded from G3 to G6, I feel that PSP is a well balanced partner - accepting sophisticated plug-ins too, eg. Panotools for any geometric manipulation, and now features scripting similar to PS Action.

So I'm definitely not in the same league as gmitchel, who confesses to be obsessed over crafting the best sharpened images his ever more sharpened skill will allow. And so he created his own, impressive and free TLR Sharpening Toolkit - complete with top tutorials, very commendable too. But, since it's all PS Actions, it's useless to me in PSP.

And here, I risk a statement I can't prove: a person fully mastering PSP would be able to adapt TLRST to PSP - within limits, because PSP of course doesn't match PS. The same might apply to other sharpeners discussed. But nobody has done it nor will ever do it.

If so and as I see it, it all boils down to PS and USM (with exceptions as Scottes mentioned). The rest is controls, Actions and presets in various combinations.

***************************

With this, it is about time for me to disclose "my sharpener".
And it is quite a different kind of animal.

It actually is not at all "my", but a freeware application called SharpControl. SC has been around and used to great satisfaction by me and others for nearly two years. Seeing phili1's demo, I just couldn't resist to have a go at his original untouched image and produce my sharpened and then favourably valued version in just a couple of minutes.

SC is not a shell for PS USM, as it is a stand alone Windows application and said to use algorithms from industrial medical imaging. SC has not even Shareware standard, is more like an experiment.

There is a comprehensive tutorial including lots of background information at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~binaryfx/PSTV_sharpcontrol.html (http://members.ozemail.com.au/%7Ebinaryfx/PSTV_sharpcontrol.html)
The 340KB SC zip file can currently be downloaded from
http://www.foto-freeware.de/download.php?id=19

I would rate SC very favourably along Scottes criteria: Base Knowledge Required, Learning Curve and Ease of Use (handling see below) all very friendly, and Attainable Results (on difficult images) very favourable as well, IMHO. SC has 5 controls, a live preview freely relocatable in the target image and provision to compare and select from differently sharpened versions - very effective too. The power demanding operation apparently is due to the 32 bpc process in HSI color space.

***************************
So there is the big question:
Does SC really stand up to or even excel PS & USM based sharpening strategies, executed by experienced users? To find out, I would like to invite all the gurus here to contribute to the comparison and evaluation scheme as outlined in the following.
***************************

May I suggest to all dear participants to illustrate their views and results? This way, we all would really learn and probably raise a step or two along the Reichmann scale.

I would suggest to take phili1's original, untouched sample (assuming it to be a 100% original crop), have a go at it, save it as a jpg about 70KB big, put it on some server and give me the link, including tool, procedure, settings and comments. I'll insert the samples in the replacer at http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/roro_08.htm (http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/roro_08.htm)and everybody could compare and learn. We might then be able to objectively discuss pros and cons of all sorts and even establish some quality reference for sharpening.

***************************

But there is a handicap with SC: as a stand alone it depends on interaction with an image editor.

Interaction with PSP (and many others) works flawlessly via clipboard - with images of any size. But for every image or image element this requires a lot of key strokes and mouse clicks. Considering results, this is acceptable to me for a few artsy pictures, but very tedious for larger numbers.

Interaction with PS seems to be cumbersome, since PS is reported not to allow export of larger bitmaps to the clipboard. So the only option is to transfer tif files via harddisc. This obviously has prevented SC to attain any notable recognition and dispersion.

***************************
This leads to the ultimate aim of my intervention:
If we here would be able to agree on the usefulness of SharpControl, this would very much support a suggestion to the author of SC to formally agree to his code being converted to open source and a standard plug-in suitable for use with virtually any image editor.
***************************

I know the author of SC to the extent of some e-mail exchange. And I know that he does not claim copyright, has no intentions of commercial use now or ever in future - forget about further development. (There is a vague attempt to shed editor dependence called PhotoControl. With a future SharpControl plug-in, there appears to be no need for such a program.) And I know too that the author already thought of an official release of his code as open source - but this is not yet an established fact. After that, the implementation as a plug-in might prove as not too difficult - there are enough people on the net occupied with exactly such work.

My aim is to advance this development, and I hope for your kind support.


PS (post script):
gmitchel wrote:

If you have not tried it, try the Creative action for Localized Contrast Enhancement. It improves many images. I borrowed the idea from Michael Reichmann, who got it from Thomas Knoll. No brush is needed. Just run the action. I find 30,50,0 or 20,50,0 works well for most images.

Instead of adding here more and more words, I invite you to
http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/ll-comp.htm
If anything, this seems to indicate that SC is considerably more powerful than LCE and the whole USM strategy. ;) And this my bold statement might motivate you all to find out and possibly disprove it.

:lol: Hope to hear from you - with kind regards
flowe

[Scottes]

Well, I'm interested. I'll have to look into this when I have more time.


So there is the big question:
Does SC really stand up to or even excel PS & USM based sharpening strategies, executed by experienced users?
A person skilled with sharpening in Photoshop alone will beat a newbie using the best sharpening program out there. Every single time.
My money is still on gmitchel. :-)

Psst: Don't let me down, Mitch!

[phili1]

Flowe I would like to try it but according to the tutorial you need PSP for it to run and it only works in JPG & Tiff and most SLR users shoot in raw, convert in raw, do all our work in raw and then convert to Tiff and JPG.

Also based on what I read he uses the same principal as USM but instead of three adjustment he has put in 5, or maybe I did not read it properly.

If I misread it let me know and I will try it.

[flowe]

phili1,

At this stage of the game, you are perfectly ok with your usual workflow in PS. Before you apply any sharpening, save a copy as top quality jpg or uncompressed tif, adding SC0 to the file name. Then proceed, ie. sharpen in PS with your favorite sharpener and save as usual.

Then open SC, load *SC0.*, experiment until you like a version, save this one again, replacing SC0 in the file name with SC1. This you open again in PS and compare results. Surprise, surprise...

Regarding the number of controls: 5 parameters instead of 3 definitely means another or at least an extended algorithm. The proof of the pudding lies in the eating - as the Englishman said.

Good luck!

[phili1]

I did a test and here is what I found. Flowe has something here but it has limitations.

There is a definite improvement over everything else but it only works with web size files. It can't handle an full 8 meg tiff or JPG.

It shows you the difference in results on screen and you have to remember to give it a file ext (.JPG)

The way I see it is we can process it using Mitch's sytem and tweek it with this for the web.

I posted 4 pics for you to review, the first one is MItch's and the 10B is Flowe's CS. The second group is no process and Flowe's. The thing that impresses me is it does not increase noise oike other systems.

Look close to the feathers and the background, it has a preceived increase in sharpness in both subject and background.

One other note it eliminates EXIF data. NO big deal but it would be nice to keep.

See for your self.

http://www.pbase.com/phili1/sharpen_test

[CyberDyneSystems]

Flowe,

Thanks for getting back to us.

As to whether your SharpControl can best PSCS?

In my mind the question is almost moot.. one of the aspects of PSCS, and Gmitchell's tools as well as other PS plugins is the sharpening tools ability to seamlessly work with PS (or PSPs) masks, layers etc...

These techniques (ie selective sharpening, however it is acheived) are indispensible for the best, most controlled results.

Not that it could not be accomplished using SharpControl.. but as an external stand alone application the use of it to attempt selective sharpening would be prohibitively cumbersome IMHO.

Now.. if SharpControl gets it's act together and makes a PS/PSP plug-in? ;) that would be another matter all together.

I am intersted though.. and will defintately be giving sharp control a try as well. :)

[Scottes]

Good point CDS. I **reallY** don't think I'd use SC unless it were a PS plugin. Not just SC, but any step that *interrupts* my PS workflow. Running something before or after is OK, as long as it's not substantially limited by the lack of creative PS methodologies (selective control, masking ,etc.)

I still think it's very interesting.

[gmitchel]

Phil:

I'm pleased you find the Creative sharpening actions helpful.

Have you tried the Creative USM Dual Contours. It makes two layers where you can paint in sharpening. One for the light halo and the other for the dark halo.

Oversharpening is most evident on the white halo. I typically use a more aggressive setting on the dark halo layer. Then use brush opacity or layer opacity to dial it back.

Enjoy!

Cheers,

Mitch

[flowe]

In the order of the last 4 posts:

phili1:

There is a definite improvement over everything else but it only works with web size files. It can't handle an full 8 meg tiff or JPG.
This is definitely not so. SC works on any image size I've ever seen. Example: jpg ex G6 4MB, same as uncompressed tif 21MB - no problem at all to open it in SC. Should handle 8 and 16 bpc. Sure you saved as uncompressed RGB file?

I inserted 4 of your pics in the picture changer - makes it a lot easier to assess and judge - agree?
http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/roro_08.htm (http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/roro_08.htm)

CDS:

As to whether your SharpControl can best PSCS?
Again: it's not "your", it's not my brain child, I just like it and feel that it may be interesting to many others too.

Will it "best" PSCS? This is not the issue. SC IMO should be compared to USM as such, as a single element in any workflow within any image editor, PS or otherwise. Admittedly, as a stand alone SC is not much good, and that's why I try to promote it to become an ordinary plug-in - with the support of the crowd here.

To find out if SC has the potential as an alternative to USM, the SC stand alone works nicely using the tif file on harddisc as just mentioned to phili1.


Now.. if SharpControl gets it's act together and makes a PS/PSP plug-in? ;) that would be another matter all together.
That's the only purpose of this discussion, and I hope that sooner or later we will get there.

Scottes:

Good point CDS. I **reallY** don't think I'd use SC unless it were a PS plugin. Not just SC, but any step that *interrupts* my PS workflow. Running something before or after is OK, as long as it's not substantially limited by the lack of creative PS methodologies (selective control, masking ,etc.)
Quite so!

gmitchel:
I really hope that you get me right: just imagine in all your praised actions to replace USM with something even better! This is probably my own ignorant way of putting it, but I still hope it correctly conveys my intentions.



Please comment on the Picture changer. I tried to improve it to handle more samples you might supply. If applicable, procedure and settings should be supplied for users of the same tool to be able to improve on. I think that better samples using the same tools should replace the previous ones, so the resulting quality closes in on the real potential of the pertaining tool.

:lol: Regards to everybody!
flowe

[phili1]

Well I think it has a definite place among the best if we can get it to work with photoshop. Maybe a colaberation between Mitch and the guy who started this.

Flowe I tried it on a tiff 8 Meg file the viewer could not handle it.

Here is where i find it helps the most. When I use MItch's capture and creative teh saver it as a JPG for the web, then I bring it into SC and it makes it pop.

I read where the guy got boared with it, maybe someone should try to pick it up.

[gmitchel]

I could not download the software. When I tried, I got the typical HTML error about the zip file not being found.

It looks like USM to me with an edge mask and sharpening in smaller, multiple steps. Focal Blade includes masking. One of the pieces of advice that is addressed in my sharpening training CDs is the idea of making smaller, multiple sharpening passes rather than large, wholesale sharpening in a single pass. Ben willmore, I believe, passes along the same advice.

Cheers,

Mitch

[phili1]

I am not a knowlegable as you but it has a good base, it does improve an image, but you wwould know more but my thoughts is if this guy doesn't want it you can incorporate it in your system?

Antway here is the link.

http://www.foto-freeware.de/download.php?id=19

[flowe]

Hi all

It's a week now since the last post in this thread. Somehow strange…

In the meantime, I've read similar threads here and elsewhere. They all tapered off without useful conclusion. Is there no real answer? Yes, sharpening is more of art and procedures than tools, depending on picture and intentions too. But basic tool differences IMO should be identifyable and allow some consent and guideline and provide a base to build on.

I hoped too to get some more samples of sharpening the raw samples or better results with the same tools to include in the Image Changer (http://homepage.hispeed.ch/flowe/digifoto/roro_08.htm) for everybody to see and assess and to learn from. None came along.

Don't we look at the same thing? Do I imagine something you don't see, that you consider as prejudiced on my part? Did I offend somebody? Or did I break some taboo or infringe some other long standing convention? Language shortcomings? If so, then certainly unintentional.

The differences shown in the Image Changer are or may appear as small or even insignificant - although some comments indicated otherwise. An issue are the monitors everybody is looking at, which might or might not be able to show the difference or benefits of some procedures or tools. If an elderly CRT can't render the differences, then disinterest is understandable. But this probably is not a real issue in this particular group of people.

As indicated before, SharpControl is something of an orphan and nobody and certainly not me has any commercial interest in it. I'm just under the impression that it does a good job - and there was some consent on that too. If it is sound, it may do some good to most of us - if not, let's find out.

And if it's sound, then there was some agreement that a plug-in version would be helpful, even essential - as my original posts already suggested. Any progress?

So what stopped the thread? Please do speak up!

Regards
flowe

[phili1]

Flowe. NO I think we all agreed that Gene Mitchells program is a good one and so is Photokit. I give the edge to MItch's.

Your program in my opinion had allot going for it but its base was not good for the work flow we need.

What I found with Mitch's program is that you can taylor it to what your needs are for a specific program. His goes beyond the basic USM. I like the idea of being able to paint in sharpness. If you have an already sharp picture you do not need as much and all you have to do is reduce the opacity and you have it, if you need more you increase it.

I very rarley use output because I swear by QIMage it does the output sharpening for me and does a good job.

As far as Sharp control is concerened it does have something the other's do not but it is a dificult process to import it and then save it and then reopen it in photoshop.

My last post I suggesated that Mitch contact him and see if he can get the info, because the design is totally different and it might make his one step better but I do not know enough about programing to really comment.

And no you did not offend anyone, I alwasy welcome good and bad comments about what I do, or I won't get any better.

[Scottes]

Flowe, I certainly do not think that you upset anyone, or that anyone was confused about language, or such. I also think that SC looks very good - but I can't say "promising" because it seems to be going nowhere. I'd love to see it come forward.

One thing to realize is that the major speakers in this topic - myself, gmitchel, and phil1 - are all very heavy Photoshop users. We all understand PS and sharpening very, very well. We all understand that sharpening is in fact an art form, not a science. As such, a program or action set has to meet 2 criteria: it has to work inside PS and it has to be *very* good. SC fails on the first. In my opinion that means that it's useless to me, and I won't spend time on it since there's no benefit to me.

Now if SC were going somewhere I would certainly show more interest. If the author were to ask for beta testers then I'd step up and volunteer with the hopes (and goal) that it might one day make it into PS. But until then it's just a mental exercise, while I have hundreds of images that require sharpening.

I hope SC goes someplace, and I hope that I hear about it when it does.

[gmitchel]

I certainly was not irritated in any way.

People can use my toolkit or not. I give it away.

My theory is sharpening tools are like any other tool. They are a personal item. The same tool can be considered extremely helpful by one person and extremely awkward by another.

I'm content to offer people an option, and I'm delighted to hear when people find it helpful. It causes me no insult when they say they prefer another tool. It's not a personal attack. It's just a statement of a personal preference.

What I look for from these threads is comments about problems/bugs and suggestions. Phil made one, which I incorporated right away. Sometimes people modify the actions and forward the changes to me. That happened recently with Danny Raphael. He modified my B&W Conversion action set to make it a little more user friendly. Now, everyone benefits, since it is a permanent part of the action set. I like it when the stuff I work on becomes more of a social activity.

I thought the thread ended merely because . . . well . . . threads have a tendency to do that. We discuss something for a while and then move on to other topics.

Scottes, for example, must spend hours a day helping people here. It seems like he's on whenever I check the forum and he posts I don't know how many messages a day. He's generous to a fault here with his time! After a few days with no activity on a thread, my guess is that it gets overlooked. So many threads, only so much time! Eh, Scottes?! :)

I certainly took no offense at any comments on this thread. I thought it was all quite cordial. :)

Cheers,

Mitch

[tim]

gmitchel,

I've been playing with your toolkit, and it seems pretty good. The main thing i've noticed is there's a bunch of different sharpening actions, and no real guides about when to use which. I get the idea of first use a capture filter then later use an output one, but there's at least 3 of each. If you were to write a quick guide about when to use each that'd be most useful for newbies like myself. Also, settings dialogs pop up, and it's not obvious which settings to use, even with the preview in photoshop.

[gmitchel]

gmitchel,

I've been playing with your toolkit, and it seems pretty good. The main thing i've noticed is there's a bunch of different sharpening actions, and no real guides about when to use which. I get the idea of first use a capture filter then later use an output one, but there's at least 3 of each. If you were to write a quick guide about when to use each that'd be most useful for newbies like myself. Also, settings dialogs pop up, and it's not obvious which settings to use, even with the preview in photoshop.

Tim:

Thanks for the comment. :)

I agree that the kit comes with minimal instruction. I am working on a CD tutorial, which will offer plenty of lessons that explain sharpening in general, the sharpening methods in the TLR Sharpening Toolkit, and some other sharpening methods.

If you visit the Learning Galleries on my site, there is a walk-through for the sharpening actions. The Tutorials section also has a tutorial on sharpening that explains the philosophy behind the toolkit.

Briefly . . .

The toolkit assumes someone already understands the basics of USM or highpass sharpening. There are some guidelines in the resources I mentioned, but not a lot when it comes to settings for USM or the Highpass filter. Those settings are *HIGHLY* variable. To say that images with fine details benefit from one USM setting and those with large details benefit from another misses the point that perceived sharpness will be affected by the size of the output medium, the type of output medium, viewing distance, the resolution of the image, etc. Same image with my 20D and my 1Ds MkII require very different USM or Highpass filter settings. ;) Forget the talk about the size of the photosites and resolution of the 20D and a cropped 1Ds MkII image. I can tell you from personal experience, out of the camera, 1Ds MkII images are *MUCH* sharper and will show visible artifacts sooner with aggressive settings.

What I intend to explain in my next tip on my site (next for it next Monday) is how to refine the edge mask for sharpening. You would need to set some of the steps in the actions for edge masks to manual. One can obtain better edge masks, however, manually -- with an understanding of what's going on when building the edge/surface masks.

The toolkit also assumes you want to use a two-pass or three-pass sharpening technique. You are right, the capture sharpening actions are used early in the workflow. They are the only sharpening actions that incorporate an edge/surface mask. Output sharpening is done at/near the end of the workflow. It affects the entire image. Creative sharpening -- with the exception of Localized Contrast Enhancement -- is applied with a brush. This lets you sharpen/blur specific areas of the image. This is the part of the toolkit that Phil especially likes. Think of the Creative sharpening step as optional. (Many images will benefit from Localized Contrast Enhancement, however. It is not brushed. It affects the entire image.)

The complex set of choices you mention involves three questions. Do you want to sharpen the dark and light contours of the sharpening halo separately? Do you want to use an enhanced edge/surface mask? Do you want to use Highpass sharpening or USM sharpening?

If you want to sharpen the light and dark contours separately, you want to use one of the Dual Contour USM methods. The reason for dual contour sharpening is that the lighter portion of the sharpening halo tends to develop visible artifacts easier than the dark portion. By sharpening them separately, you can often apply more aggressive sharpening setting settings to the dark contour. Until one is comfortable with how USM works, I suggest they use the Single Contour USM actions. The tradeoff is resulting file size. The dual contour methods use two layers.

My toolkit offers a choice that other sharpening toolkits do not offer. You can use a luminosity edge mask or an enhanced edge mask. Other toolkits use a luminosity edge mask where edges are defined by variations in tone. What those edge masks can miss is variations in color that have the same tone. The enhanced edge mask in my toolkit combines the luminosity edge mask *AND* a color edge mask. In some cases,the differences are slight. In other cases, the enhanced edge mask results in a better edge mask, picking up additional edges or better defining edges from the luminosity edge mask. The trade-off is time. With something like Canon 10D or 20D images, the time differences is not all that great. But if you use something like a Canon 1Ds MkII or scan negatives, the time difference is substantial. Depending on processor speed and available RAM, the difference can be measured in minutes.

The third choice is between USM and Highpass sharpening. For capture sharpening, I tend to gravitate towards Highpass. For creative sharpening, I prefer USM and usually Dual Contour USM. For output sharpening, I'm AC/DC. Sometimes USM, sometimes Highpass.

I hope I helped a bit. :)

Cheers,

Mitch

[Scottes]

Mitch, that helps a LOT.

Now, while you're on the subject, how about a couple sentences describing the differences of High Pass versus USM?

[tim]

Thanks Mitch, that helps, and I look forward to reading/watching your tutorial when it's available. It sounds like a pretty complex area that you need a ood amount of knowledge in to do effectively. I'll just play with your actions and see how they work for now :)

[Scottes]

It sounds like a pretty complex area that you need a ood amount of knowledge in to do effectively.
That's a pretty fair statement. :-)


Actually it's not so bad, really. But as is usual with complex things the learning process is best built up in steps. If you're jumping from plain old USM right into Mitch's toolkit you're skipping 3 steps in the learning process, so it seems to be fairly difficult.

Mitch's Toolkit and PhotoKit Sharpener both follow a 3-stage sharpening process: Capture Sharpening, Creative Sharpening and Output Sharpening. ALL of them are actually optional as long as you do one of them.


I started with a one-step "just sharpen it" approach. In a sense this is Output Sharpening, really (though done differently, usually stronger).

Then maybe I realized that many pics could benefit from some more sharpening in different spots than others. Hmmm... That's beginning to be Creative Sharpening.

But that didn't look quite right, since it's sharpening all the noise and stuff that shouldn't be sharpened, like flat areas. So I added a Surface Mask so the sharpening is only applied to the edges. And that looked even better.

But that didn't look quite right after a while, once I got used to it. My prints is a little soft all over. So I found that I had to add Output Sharpening and I was into a 2-pass system.

But the double sharpening was causing artifacts in the brighter areas, and maybe blowing very small areas out to pure white. So I went back to the Creative step and made that a 2-pass system as well by sharpening the darker parts more than the brighter parts. (This is Mitch's Dual Contour step - very nice.)

Then I got an image that took a bit more processing than usual, or maybe it needs upsizing. Things look a bit odd because the process did too much too many pixels, and I just thught it could look better. So I added Capture Sharpening at the very beginning, just a little, which makes things behave better through the process.

But when I went to do the Creative step I found that I was getting artifacts in the bright areas AND dark areas. So I went back to the Capture step and limited that sharpening to the midtones by using a Blend-If layer.

So in many steps over time I managed to get to a full, nicely done 3-step process - or 4-step if you count the Dual Contour as 2 steps.

It was a learning process, no doubt.


But if you jump from USM to Mitch's toolkit you're missing all those little nuances in between. You're missing some of the reasoning behind each of the steps and how they're done.

Luckily you get to learn it a lot faster than I did!
:-)