Murray Foote
Member
That is a significant difference. I think having lots of clear lines in the bark to resolve may have helped a lot for it to work.
This is where I very much hope the promise of the approach can be selectively applied; not so much to achieve focus, but more to reduce blur to the point where it is no longer a distraction.
Very interesting. I was wondering whether deconvolution sharpening was something worth looking into.
Thanks for the info, man.Hi Joseph,
I can't decide for others (unless asked to), but I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to restore real resoluton. Topaz In-focus version 1.0 does need some further development to become more useful for different types of images, but they say that they are working on that.
Meanwhile you can try deconvolution yourself, e.g. by downloading a free program called RawTherapee. It is a Raw converter, but it also reads e.g. TIFFs and it allows to use a so-called Richardson-Lucy implementation of deconvolution sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,Hi Joseph,
I can't decide for others (unless asked to), but I wouldn't like to miss the opportunity to restore real resoluton. Topaz In-focus version 1.0 does need some further development to become more useful for different types of images, but they say that they are working on that.
Meanwhile you can try deconvolution yourself, e.g. by downloading a free program called RawTherapee. It is a Raw converter, but it also reads e.g. TIFFs and it allows to use a so-called Richardson-Lucy implementation of deconvolution sharpening.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart,
I haven't used RAW Therapee as of yet, but according to the comparison page on the RAw Therapee website, it would compare favorably with most all other RAW processors.
There's a new alpha version of Therapee 3.0 available with a feature freeze, meaning that this version is going to be just fixed for bugs or GUI and could be stable.
Is this what you are using for sharpening in some circumstances or you just know of it?
Wow. RawTherapee. Its been a while. Back when I was first learning about RAW files, I ran across this and used it for a little while. Nice program. Also nice to see they've continued developing it.
Thanks for that blast from the past Bart!
the real thanks need to go to the original author who released his program to become open source when he couldn't find the time to maintain it any longer
Why would anyone use PK Sharpener for this step since it is not deconvolution based?
Alain,When photographing with a camera that doesn't use an AA filter. Most digital backs for example.
When photographing with a camera that doesn't use an AA filter. Most digital backs for example.
Alain,
What is the logic of initial sharpening in PK sharpener as opposed to leaving to all to the end. I can understand deconvolution being done earlier so that later changes do not magnify initial errors of focus.
Asher
Sharpening is the last step in my processing worklow, after the image has been sized to print size.
Thanks Bart. I don't have a need for sharper photographs, my images are as sharp as I want them, so I haven't kept up with Topaz and other deconvolution software. I did upgrade to the latest version of Photokit Sharpener, which though it may be 'older technology' gives me amazingly sharp prints.
In any case, my focus is on creating interesting photographs rather than worry endlessly about sharpness. That's why I enjoy using PK sharpener. If there is a deconvolution software as easy to use as PK then I'm good for it!
I just did a test with and I got the same results visually with Topaz InFocus and CS5 Smart Sharpen. There may be more going on behind the scene, but visually I can't tell the difference and as far as I am concerned this is a visual art so if you can't see it then who cares.
What about "capture sharpening"?
"The input or “Capture Sharpening” is the first leg of the sharpening workflow. The aim is to introduce the correct amount of pre-sharpening that regains the sharpness lost during digitization while being very careful to not do any harm to the image." Jeff Schewe Source.
Is this part of your PK sharpening workflow?
Asher
FYI, The Smart sharpening filter (in advanced mode) uses a form of deconvolution, just not as effective as a dedicated deconvolver. So for mild cases of blur their results can be close. In my experience, Smart shapening is not as effective in cases of significant diffraction blur, e.g. when a subject requires a narrow aperture for Depth of Field, such as macro photography.
You are correct that it's the result that counts, and it's exactly for that reason I tell people to keep an eye on this technology. Even cameras without an AA-filter (which need careful sharpening to not enhance aliasing artifacts), will benefit. Especially as the number of pixels increases, and the sensel sizes shrink, deconvolution will help to restore per pixel sharpness.
Cheers,
Bart
Deconvolution sharpening was not a real topic when Bruce Fraser wrote his book
How would you define Deconvolution? Anyone? I can't find a good definition on the web in regards to photography. The definitions I found are about algorithyms.