Lightroom: Stronger, more flexible sharpening.

Why did you turn detail off?

Also, LR does use multiple radii, it just does it automatically.

"Why did you turn detail off?"

Because, IMO, it causes more digital artifacting than it's worth. Use detail in LR then add additional sharpening in PS (which I often find necessary) and you'll see the unpleasant effect.

"Also, LR does use multiple radii, it just does it automatically. "

As a matter of intellectual curiosity I'd love to hear more about this, but it doesn't lessen my wish for increased strength, flexibility and control.

Here's LR vs Capture One. This time I gave LR a fair dose of Detail in the event that omitting it was a disadvantage. I'll also include a shot without Detail for comparison.

"By the way, your Aperture image (top-left) is an absolute train wreck, in my opinion. "

That may be, but that's how I like to "dial in" the right amount, by exceeding it and then backing down. It's an approach I don't get to take as often as I'd like to for sharpening in LR.

Scott, I might be missing something here as I don't deal with or speak the tech stuff. But, in my view the most satisfactory sharpening is the Lightroom setting in your first post. The others are all a little soft or oversharpened.

Geoff, I've not attempted to present the "best" that can be attained from each application. What I'm trying to show is that LR, at a radius of 1.3 and maxed out on the amount at 150, is just about getting there for me but can go no further. For comparison I've shown that both Aperture and Capture One can (if so desired) go further at the same radius (and Aperture can do it several times over and at additional radii). All other controls were zeroed for the purpose of control. There's been no finessing, this is about how much volume and power is available.

One can easily back down from too much, but when max is not enough you've got to go outside the program.

I don't see people settling for insufficient control over exposure, contrast, hue, saturation, etc, so why settle for a relatively (compared to the competition, if nothing else) paltry amount of sharpening? I don't hear Aperture and Capture One users asking their developers to reduce the amount of sharpening available. One wants "too much," there might be times they can use it.

Thanks for your answer Scott. I would suggest putting the request in a more concise manner such as: Could we have the sharpening range and methods of application extended as the amount I see available in competing products has more power. Attached screen shots show the amounts and results from......
I can see merit in what you are asking for!!

"Well, obviously I don't have the image to play with, but first-cut suggestion would be as follows:

Sharpening: 60/1/25/30
L-NR: 30/75/0
C-NR: 10/75

Then export the image without resizing and with export sharpening set to screen-standard. Then look at that image. "

Thanks for that Lee Jay, and I fully respect the travails of suggesting numbers without having the image to play with. Attached I show the result on the left in PS compared to LR with the Detail panel turned off.

My feelings: at 100% view I actually prefer the unsharpened version on the right because of how much I dislike the artifacting created by the Detail slider. It's not a good tradeoff, IMO.

At reduced viewing sizes I'd prefer even more sharpening. I'd like a higher Amount (without the detail artifacts) with some masking, and NR only if needed, and/or applied selectively to the non-detailed areas. I'd love the ability to apply NR to the inverse of the sharpening mask. Might be wrong for some applications, but for instance it'd be nice to apply sharpening to diamond edges and NR to the smooth metals. I'd settle for painting my own masks, but it does no good if I can't progressively exceed an amount I already find insufficient.

Scott,

I now understand your comment in the other thread (about having had enough...) (this is my first viewing of this thread).

I gave this FR my vote - two thumbs up...

I definitely would like more control over sharpening, specifically the ability to have local pins with different detail and radius, and even masking too, although that would be secondary.

Although I've never needed an amount greater than 150 myself, I have no objection to raising it for those who would use it. And, I have cranked it all the way up a time or two.

PS - the gems are a perfect example of a case where detail really should be zero - no textural detail sharpening of the flat surfaces whatsoever. And in fact, it would be an example where substantial noise reduction to take away detail might be in order - its all about the hard edges...

PPS - Have you tried setting output sharpening to 'High'? (since you seem to like things sharpened more than average...)

Rob

Scott,

I now understand your comment in the other thread (about having had enough...) (this is my first viewing of this thread).

I gave this FR my vote - two thumbs up...

I definitely would like more control over sharpening, specifically the ability to have local pins with different detail and radius, and even masking too, although that would be secondary.

Although I've never needed an amount greater than 150 myself, I have no objection to raising it for those who would use it. And, I have cranked it all the way up a time or two.

PS - the gems are a perfect example of a case where detail really should be zero - no textural detail sharpening of the flat surfaces whatsoever. And in fact, it would be an example where substantial noise reduction to take away detail might be in order - its all about the hard edges...

PPS - Have you tried setting output sharpening to 'High'? (since you seem to like things sharpened more than average...)

PPPS - I think Adobe set 150 as the maximum because its at the limit of the algorithm - more than that and the algorithm starts to fall apart (quality of result starts to decline). I agree with Lee Jay on this point: If you need greater than 150, you probably need a different algorithm, e.g. deconvolution - maybe a good idea for a separate thread. I use Focus Magic too if its really "out of focus", Topaz Labs came up with a competing product recently too, but unlike Topaz other products - its not very good.

Truth betold, I would prefer to see sharpness fall-off correction over a general deconvolution feature or the like, since its a frequent occurrence to see wide angle shots that are sharp in the center but decrease in sharpness toward the edges. If something is really out of focus, the delete key usually fixes it, or focus magic, or Photoshop... - sorry for getting a tad off-topic.

Rob

"I'll stick with my earlier comment. This sharpening is designated as capture sharpening, there primarily to compensate for the AA filter and, to a lesser degree, the demosaicing."

If sharpening in LR is meant to be capture sharpening, then that explains a lot. Capture sharpening is meant to be just the minimum amount required to compensate for the AA filter. Less is more when it comes to capture sharpening.

That makes the omission of creatie sharpening poignant.

Also, I maintain that more control over output sharpening, along with an ability to preview, would be welcome. In theory, output sharpening would depend on the output media and the size of the print.

I also use Leaf Capture at a catalog studio I work at.

Aperture, Capture One, and Leaf Capture, provide "industrial strength" sharpening. I suspect the same for the slew of Raw converters I've yet to try.

LR provides "capture sharpening".

Thanks Rob. Yes, the spirit of my statement. I'm slighting it's slight handed approach.

And just so you know...this *is* that other thread. ;-)

Right-O, and PS - I don't think the selective focus is working to your advantage for the example gem shot. The only thing that's going to fix those gems on the left side is a new picture - maybe shoot it with a compact, or stop down and add light... I realize this was just an example for illustrative purposes, but definitely the scope of Lightroom sharpening is to take pictures that are already shot with a relatively sharp lens, and in focus..., and crispin' them up a bit, not to bring out-of-focus regions into focus, or other such extreme sharpening... Also, 'Clarity' is Lightroom's "Coarse Sharpener".

That was an outtake...for good reason. ;-)

The other converters have their version of Clarity too. But really, I can do Clarity in PS too, and if the concept is to use LR minimally with the expectation of doing anything "creative" in PS, why draw the line at sharpening, lets make all the tools tepid.