Post processing getting easier (?)

[Lou Jost]

Sure, I'd love to find easier ways! I'll send you something by PM later today or tomorrow. Remind me if I forget (it has been known to happen).

[lothman]

just played around in Topaz Photo AI

[emkraak]

just played around in Topaz Photo AI
ant out of zerene-pmn-topaz-color-sharpen-lighting-lighting-3.jpeg

Not a good advertisement for Topaz imho, or AI in general; it made up 'ghost hairs' all over the place which are surely not
there in the orig.
I did try out Topaz SharpenAI v2.x and was enthousiast, did a very good job to all I fed it. Then v3 I found disastrous. No clue about current but this does not look good to me.

[Lou Jost]

It would be helpful to see a normally-sharpened version of the original.

[lothman]

It would be helpful to see a normally-sharpened version of the original.

curves, graduation, clarity and unsharp mask sharpening in Affinity

[lothman]

...; it made up 'ghost hairs' all over the place which are surely not
there in the orig.

? could you crop please an example?

[emkraak]

It would be helpful to see a normally-sharpened version of the original.

@ Lou,
first guestion imho: does it need sharpening at all? (I think not but we do not see the original here online).
For games sake I tried unsharpen in my old PSP9 on the 3rd (end) version... at reach .5, strength 80 (!) and distinguish at lowest (2); as expected I got a bit raised microcontrast but no made up artifacts.

? could you crop please an example?

@ lothman

Both at 200%:
1) The version that Beatsy ended up with and liked
2) The Topaz version

We can see a lot of differences:
a) Topaz added about 15 points yellow (did you ask for that?)
b) Topaz lowered contrast significantly
c) Topaz lost a lot of original detail
d) Topaz added ghostlines, not just dark ones but also light ones (I marked a few in red)

Regards, Egon

Edit: have to add the Affinity version is even more horrible imho

[emkraak]

3) My version of unsharpened (using PSP9 unsharpen .5 / 150 / 2 - the 150 is already overdone imho, I don't think Beatsy's pic needs any 'improvements'). This is sharpened for internet. If for print the .5 would change to 1.5 or such.... I set the discrimination at lowest, so all and everything gets sharpened.:

[Lou Jost]

Thank you veruy much, Lothman, for posting the non-AI sharpened version. That is very helpful.

Emkraak, most of us have found that deep stacks with high-NA objectives, where diffraction is important, need considerable sharpening. Convolution-based methods hardly introduce any artifacts, unlike Unsharp Mask. I also like to set the Photoshop Masking slider to a middle value to avoid amplifying noise. I am very happy with the "advanced" version of the Photoshop sharpening controls used in this way.

[emkraak]

Thank you veruy much, Lothman, for posting the non-AI sharpened version. That is very helpful.

Emkraak, most of us have found that deep stacks with high-NA objectives, where diffraction is important, need considerable sharpening. Convolution-based methods hardly introduce any artifacts, unlike Unsharp Mask. I also like to set the Photoshop Masking slider to a middle value to avoid amplifying noise. I am very happy with the "advanced" version of the Photoshop sharpening controls used in this way.

All very possible, Lou. But my impression is that Beatsy presented what he was already happy with... I don't see any objections or flaws to that. Subsequently I see several sharpenings proposed that make a mess of things imho. - What did I misunderstand?
(btw, I do not use Photoshop or any Adobe software, like I do not use fearbook and the rest of asocial nonsense- point of principle, AND I like the internet the way it was meant to be, like this forum)

[Lou Jost]

Thank you veruy much, Lothman, for posting the non-AI sharpened version. That is very helpful.

Emkraak, most of us have found that deep stacks with high-NA objectives, where diffraction is important, need considerable sharpening. Convolution-based methods hardly introduce any artifacts, unlike Unsharp Mask. I also like to set the Photoshop Masking slider to a middle value to avoid amplifying noise. I am very happy with the "advanced" version of the Photoshop sharpening controls used in this way.

All very possible, Lou. But my impression is that Beatsy presented what he was already happy with... I don't see any objections or flaws to that. Subsequently I see several sharpenings proposed that make a mess of things imho. - What did I misunderstand?
(btw, I do not use Photoshop or any Adobe software, like I do not use fearbook and the rest of asocial nonsense- point of principle, AND I like the internet the way it was meant to be, like this forum)

It was interesting to see the AI results, I think. But you will need to ask them your question.