Using Photokit Sharpener/Focalblade with QImage

[vandit]

Hi all -

 

I have just downloaded QImage, and was planning to buy Photokit

Sharpener or Focalblade as well.

 

I shoot with the 10D in RAW and my planned workflow as of right now is:

- RAW conversion with some adjustments to color temp, exp (ACR)

- adjust levels, LCE, color, saturation (PS CS)

- sharpen to taste (PS CS)

- resize and print (using Qimage)

 

QImage does an excellent job with print sharpening (which is what

convinced me to download it).

 

Given that, is there any value to also using Photokit Sharpener? Is

there a downside, for that matter (in terms of combining 2 output

sharpening algorithms)? Or is it worth getting Photokit Sharpener

just for the capture sharpening?

 

Same question re. Focalblade.

 

Any comments or opinions from people using either of these combos

would be welcome.

 

Regards,

Vandit

[alexdi]

Focalblade is more complicated than it has to be. I don't have the patience to twiddle with it; USM and edge sharpening techniques do nearly as well in 5% of the time.

 

I have never seen a good example of Photokit capture sharpening. At 100% onscreen, it looks terrible. Print sharpening is up in the air. Web sharpening is totally decent.

 

QImage doesn't require preprocessing. If it works well as a standalone, why change a good thing?

 

DI

[vandit]

David, the main reason I want to have an alternative is for control purposes. I can imagine situations where the "auto" sharpening doesnt work.

 

Also, I gather that it helps to have the image sharpened optimally in its native resolution, prior to letting QImage do its up-sizing/print sharpening thing.

 

Best,

Vandit

[andrew_rodney1]

--> Is there a downside, for that matter (in terms of combining 2 output sharpening

algorithms)? Or is it worth getting Photokit Sharpener just for the capture sharpening?

 

PhotoKit Sharpener assumes you haven't "polluted" the file with any sharpening so it can

conduct two rounds of sharpening; one for input, one for output. ANY output sharpening

routine that's not based on the device, file size and image content is just guessing here.

Since the 2nd round that PhotoKit Sharpener is doing is assuming the gentile original

capture sharpening, this output sharpening is based on this first round.

 

A good read about the idea of this workflow is here:

 

http://www.pixelgenius.com/sharpener/why.html

[chris_lauritzen2]

I use Photokit sharpener with excellent results. I do agree with David that on-screen the sharpening (output sharpening) looks awful but the prints are wonderfully sharp. This software is by far the best I have used yet.

[andrew_rodney1]

-->I use Photokit sharpener with excellent results. I do agree with David that on-screen

the sharpening (output sharpening) looks awful but the prints are wonderfully sharp.

 

That's because sharpening visually for output is kind of silly. Take an image, sharpen so it

looks "good" (don't care what zoom ratio) on a CRT. Now take it over to an LCD and view

the image at the same zoom ratio. Ugh. The opposite is true. You can have an image that

looks just awful on screen and it will print wonderfully and vise versa. The output device,

the image and the resolution all play a role. The reason PK sharpener does as well as it

does was a LOT of testing to all kinds of output devices was made and what was seen on

screen was ignored big time.

 

 

Andrew Rodney

http://digitaldog.net/

[vandit]

Hi Andrew and Chris -

 

Yes, I have read (and mostly understand) the Pixelgenius article on sharpening theory, and understand that PKSharpener assumes no sharpening prior to its own.

 

However, I am curious as to what will happen if I use PK Sharpener's output sharpening and THEN follow up with the QImage's up-ressing/sharpening. No additional benefit? Oversharpening? On one hand, if PK Sharpener "optimizes" the file for printing in its native resolution, then QImage's algorithm should maintian that, more or less. On the other hand, if QImage assumes no prior print sharpening, then it may oversharpen the results.

 

I need to take some prints out from a recent trip for an exhibition, and while I would love to spend a few weeks playing with both softwares and getting familiar, I'm a litte crunched for time - so anything that speeds up my learning curve would be greatly appreciated. Hence the query.

 

Regards,

Vandit

[alexdi]

Andrew:

 

The problem I see is that people run the input sharpening on everything, regardless of final destination. On a CRT, the result looks truly awful.

 

LCDs tend to make hash of any fine detail for whatever reason, sharpening irrelevant.

 

DI