Harold's Pot Pourri Images Re-visited -- with his Permission

[Cactusdave]

I am a great admirer of the many fine images of all sorts that are posted on this site. Sometimes, however I feel that there is even more under the surface of some images that could be brought out with judicious processing. I stress judicious, nothing ruins a fine image more than over processing, especially over sharpening. Nor am I a great one for really getting under the bonnet with Photoshop. I only use Elements 7 and layers remain something of an arcane mystery to me. However I have found a few plug-ins for Photoshop that I've found useful that I'd like to draw attention to in the hope that that some users might find them helpful. The two plug-ins that I have found most useful are Topaz Detail 2 and Topaz Denoise 5. http://www.topazlabs.com/products.html I find these particularly useful for images captured with compact and micro 4/3 cameras where noise and soft contrast can be more troublesome. I have been so impressed with the results from these plug-ins that I have contacted one or two members by PM to illustrate to them what extra detail is accessible in their images, in I hope, a not too evangelical a way
With Harold's kind permission I am illustrating the effect of Topaz Detail 2 on his rather beautiful and classical pot-pourri still life image that he used to illustrate his thread on flash settings. This struck me as very nicely composed and lit, but I felt unsatisfied by the detail and contrast. I thought this image had more to offer in these departments, I used the micro-contrast enhancement feature of Topaz Detail 2 with the default settings to enhance the image, then applied a small amount of jpeg noise reduction with Topaz Denoise5 to remove some minor noise in dark areas introduced by the first process. Normally I would not think of reprocessing another member's image and reposting it but Harold's response to my demonstration was so positive and he generously indicated that he would like other members to see the result.

First Harold's original image.




After processing as I have described.





Harold's crop from his image.




Again processed as above.




The cost of these two plugins is modest and I have been very pleased with how they perform. I have not bothered with the other Topaz filters as they seem more aimed at commercial photographers. I should perhaps add that I have no commercial interest or connection with Topaz.

Of course it is terribly easy to overdo any image processing , but I think these tools are more subtle and controllable than the Photoshop sharpening and contrast tools, at least in my clumsy hands, and easily 'faded back' to reduce their effect where necessary.
_________________
Leitz Ortholux 1, Zeiss standard, Nikon Diaphot inverted, Canon photographic gear

[Harold Gough]

Yes. Dave e-mailed me copies of these images and even the tiny copies in the body of the e-mail message were remarkably different. When I clicked the link to the slide show I was greatly impresssed by the way the detail and contours had been brought out.

I pointed out that my topic was about exposure, not about resolving fine detail per se. However, I added that I was not entirely happy with the results of PhotoShop sharpening, to the extend of my basic abilities, and would like more details of the software he uses. The cropped image had seemed lacking in fine detail when I posted it. I would like to know how to get the best out of my recent investment in Elmarit lenses. I also suggested that other members might be equally interested and that he should post the images and details of the software.

Harold
_________________
Happiness is having the right adapter.

My manual flash setup for high magnification:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117843#117843

[Peter De Smidt]

Generally, I like Topaz software, and I use their suite of filters quite often. The presets, though, are really extreme and not that helpful.

I recommend Googling the specific filter and looking for advice. For instance, you could check out: http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-cookbook/topaz-adjust-image-enhancement

And then play around a bit.

Regarding sharpening, well, there are tons of various options, including smart sharpen and Topaz's refocus. Bruce Frasier wrote a good book on sharpening a few years ago. Pixel Genius has developed a plug-in based on his work. See: http://www.pixelgenius.com/

But...I really recommend using your image processing software that you already have to it's best advantage. If you start relying on a bunch of plug-ins, this not only gets expensive, but it also makes updating a pain.
_________________
www.peterdesmidt.com/blog

[rjlittlefield]

I think it's important to consider what's desired. Strong sharpening can produce an unnatural appearance even if it doesn't produce characteristic artifacts such as halo. For example, at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2113 there are three pictures of the same skull, two of which have been so heavily sharpened that the skull looks quite weathered. The issue is discussed later in that thread.

In the current case of Harold's Pot Pourri, the reworked images strike me as being well over the line into "unnatural appearance". I don't have Topaz, but doing a side-by-side comparison against Photoshop results, the Topaz'd image looks very much like what's produced by Photoshop's Unsharp Mask at around 170% and 1.5 pixels. That could be an appropriate amount to correct for diffraction blurring in an image shot at 20X on sensor, but it's a huge amount for an image shot under the conditions seen here. Something more like 90% at 0.7 pixels gives me a result that is noticeably sharper without striking me as artificial.

In the end I have to defer to Harold, since he's the only one of us who knows what the subject really looks like.

--Rik

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Rik. In this case the xtra processing does look a little unnatural, which is very easy to do.

Apply filters on a separate layer, or using smart filters, can be very useful. This allows toning down the effect at any time, along with masking it out of places that it doesn't help.

One thing that can help with tonal definition in Photoshop is Hiraloam sharpening (high radius low amount.) Apply unsharp masking to a layer with a radius of about 70, adjusting strength to taste, usually a very low amount.
_________________
www.peterdesmidt.com/blog

[stevekale]

The best sharpening software I have found is Photokit Sharpener 2 by Pixelgenius. The line-up at Pixelgenius is an impressive one.

[Harold Gough]

It seems to me that there is scope for a FAQ on this subject. Maybe two or three unprocessed images, to cover different textures, level of detail, etc. could be distributed to whoever was interested (perhaps after canvassing as to who has which software). Reworked images, with suitable text on the processing done, could then be posted in the FAQ for reference.

Harold
_________________
Happiness is having the right adapter.

My manual flash setup for high magnification:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117843#117843

[stevekale]

Users of LR4 and ACR may well be interested in reading the posts of Jeff Schewe in these 3 threads:


http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62304.0
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=59706.0
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=64285.0

Pixelgenius (of which Jeff is a member) acted as a contractor to Adobe to develop LR's output sharpening. He comments also in these threads about LR/ACR's capture sharpening versus that developed by Bruce Fraser for Pixelgenius/Photokit. (Andrew Rodney is another member of the Pixelgenius team.)

[Harold Gough]

Dave Persuaded me and I have tried it out:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106559#106559

Harold
_________________
Happiness is having the right adapter.

My manual flash setup for high magnification:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117843#117843