Photokit Sharpener Question

[moophoto]

<p>I have been using Photokit Sharpener for some time, and I have been overall quite pleased. However, I recently noted some of the recommended settings for landscape sharpening in books, by, among others, Jeff Schewe (who, I think, helped develop the software and continues to use it). When these settings are applied, I noted a much sharper and, to my eye, better sharpened landscape photo. I then ran the same image through Lightroom, using its default "landscape sharpen" routine -- again, sharper and more pleasing results. Have others noticed this difference? Is it is possible that the limited range of options in Photokit Sharpener -- narrow edge, medium edge, wide edge -- do not give enough latitude to handle the different kinds of images one works with (from very detailed landscapes to portraits)?</p>

[kuryan_thomas]

<p>Adobe licensed the Photokit technology to use in Lightroom. Jeff Schewe now recommends we use Lightroom sharpening rather than exporting to Photoshop and using Photokit.</p>

<p>Having some adjustment latitude in Lightroom is definitely beneficial.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>If you apply the premise in capture sharpening that all you want to do is restore sharpness to what your lens delivered prior to reaching your the sensor you want your output sharpening to compensate for 300 dpi printing then PK sharpener works fine for large prints for me. It keeps me from over sharpening. There are several methods of sharpening that I sometimes use, however. I see lots of over sharpened pictures, including mine, if I sharpen too much. If I am in a hurry I use ACR sharpening or CS3 Smart sharpen but when I am really serious I go back to PK.</p>

[scott_turner]

<p>It's hard to argue with one of the developers of the package, and perhaps it's because I've gotten so used to tuning with PK Sharpener, but I've never been as happy with the sharpening in the current LR/ACR as I am with the kit. With digitally sourced files, I'm willing to admit that this may simply be that I'm too used to the way PK Sharpener works, and I simply haven't learned to tune as well in LR/ACR, but with film scans, well... the ability to directly adjust the masks using the "expert" mode seals the deal for me.</p>

<p>My biggest concern right now is that PK Sharpener seems to be a bit of an orphaned product. A beta for 64-bit CS4 came pretty quickly after CS4 was released, but it's been months now, and the 64 bit version is still only available in beta form. The beta seems to work OK, but it does make me wonder...</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[don_bryant2]

<blockquote>

<p>My biggest concern right now is that PK Sharpener seems to be a bit of an orphaned product.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was all set to purchase PK Sharpener a few weeks ago, however the lack support in the product forum was very off putting for me. Users are asking questions on the forum and no company rep. replies. It seems as though the company is a Ghost Ship, which for me didn't inspire a lot of confidence.<br>

As a result I purchased instead Nik Sharpener Pro 3.0 which I purchased on sale through Adorama. Nik Sharpener works great and I like the interface much better than PK Sharpener.</p>

 

[digitaldog]

<p>What LR doesn't provide that PhotoKit does is Creative Sharpening. That will be greatly expanded in the next version as well. </p>

<p>There are a lot of both workflow and quality advantages to doing the capture and output sharpening directly in the Raw converter and hence Jeff's suggestion AND the reason Adobe licensed the technology. If you're not working on Raw files for capture and output sharpening, well that's where PK Sharpener in Photoshop is still real useful. </p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Nik Sharpener works great and I like the interface much better than PK Sharpener.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's exactly <b>zero</b> reason for a UI considering what the product does. All you have to do is tell it what you want in terms of sharpening and since output sharpening is totally a process where seeing the results on screen are useless (and dangerous), you're shown nothing in the PKS product. </p>

[jeff_schewe]

<p>We haven't gotten around to taking the old PixelGenius forums off line...sorry about that. But we are indeed still stelling our products and are continuing development of version 2.0 product expected later in the year.</p>

<p>As for the 64 bit versions of our products, we do have the 64 bit plug-ins that work for developing an installer to properly install both 64 & 32 bit binaries ain't all that easy. Considering that the 64 bit beta is working well and really, the 64 bit Windows market is still very tiny, I wouldn't read too much into the fact it's still beta.</p>

<p>As far as using Camera Raw/Lightroom for capture sharpening, if you know how to make the image adjustments ACR/LR is arguably better that PhotoKit Capture Sharpening. The caveat being the user must know how to make the adjustments where in PKS it's a simpler dlog selection.</p>

<p>As far as output sharpening, the Print Sharpening in Lightroom is pretty much directly based on PG's Output Sharpener. Whether you do it in PKS or Lightroom matters a lot less that achieving optimal Detail settings in Develop. ACR also now has output sharpening but the limiting factor there is the output sizing and resolution options are not very robust in ACR.<br>

Neither ACR nor LR has creative sharpening to any real useful degree...and Creative Sharpening is where PG will be concentrating on with the 2.0 version of PhotoKit Sharpener...</p>

[don_bryant2]

<blockquote>

<p>There's exactly <strong>zero</strong> reason for a UI considering what the product does. All you have to do is tell it what you want in terms of sharpening and since output sharpening is totally a process where seeing the results on screen are useless (and dangerous), you're shown nothing in the PKS product.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, have you tried or tested Nik Sharpener Pro. 3.0? It doesn't seem like you have based on your remarks.<br>

As for judging output sharpness by looking the display, I don't - I'm basing my judgment on printed output. Nik Sharpener works and works very well.<br>

If Pixel Genius had maintained the site properly then I would have probably purchased PKSharpener. I'm not suggesting PK Sharpen isn't a good product. However since some of the sharpening technology had been used by Adobe and because there has not been any moderator interaction on their forums for a long time I choose not to commit to the product.<br>

Not to mention the fact that Nik does a much better job of explaing their products with online videos and their use of U-Point technology for creative sharpening.<br>

I hope Pixel Genius does well but they need to pay attention to the internet store front.</p>

<p> </p>

[don_bryant2]

<blockquote>

<p>As far as using Camera Raw/Lightroom for capture sharpening, if you know how to make the image adjustments ACR/LR is arguably better that PhotoKit Capture Sharpening.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've found Capture One to be a much better RAW processor than ACR and LR though I do like the tool set that ACR/LR share. And the output sharpening options for ACR are confusing, since that seems to be the wrong place in the workflow to apply those settings.</p>

[terrybebertz]

<p>I've just written PK about the possible v2 products timetable. Perhaps I'll get a reply and I'll then post it.</p>

[terrybebertz]

<p>I've received an answer to Jeff Schewe's statement of Jun 07th about "continuing development of version 2.0 product expected later in the year."<br>

They were brief and stated the will not comment on unreleased products.<br>

While that is understandable, did not Jeff "comment"? The question arises about the development of the product if the web site is poor and, admittedly, old and this is the last part of the year with rumor of a new version.<br>

What does one do?</p>