Any Topaz Sharpen AI Users?

[Harlequin565]

Just downloaded the trial to see if it's better than LR's sharpening. For 80 bucks I was hoping to be impressed...

However one of the most oft used features of LR Sharpen is being able to hold down the ALT key as I mask to create an auto-mask to pick up edges, without the faff of painting masks on the image.

I found the mask function but it looks like you have to "paint" the areas you want sharp. Typically I am looking for edge sharpness when I sharpen and the masking tool in LR allows me to very quickly apply it.

Before I give up with the trial, does anyone know if this is a feature (auto-mask with an overlay)?

TIA!

 

[Dave Canon]

I use Topaz Sharpen AI and rarely use the mask. The use of a mask in this case is just to let it use the AI sharpening in areas of the picture you want, In general it is not necessary to use the mask because the AI is quite capable at sorting out what needs sharpening and by how much. I also use LR but no longer use the LR sharpening (no point in driving round in a ford Fiesta when you have a Rolls Royce). The edge sharpening which you can use on LR is just to increase edge contrast and is not very subtle. It is no more than OK whereas Topaz is excellent. You have to be careful to not over sharpen with any of these methods.

Dave

 

[Harlequin565]

Thanks Dave. That might be the case for digital but sadly it's not for film. Sharpened grain looks awful. I use edge sharpening just to sharpen the edges and leave softer textures untouched.

I'm guessing the AI is expecting a digital file where "all noise is bad" and isn't really set up for film use. Back to LR!

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I'm getting some good results with a few of my files. I don't go there unless it needs the extra over LR standard sharpening; that's obviously to save time and drive space. Generally, minor camera shake or slight defocus can be restored surprisingly well where you would otherwise delete it. Sadly lens defects (crappy corners) still can't be fixed by the looks of it. I would say it useful to have it overall particualarly where you need an extra safety net with your files. If you can of course do a couple of takes and that normally eliminates the need for this.
My main criticism for Topaz so far is that they have 3 very powerful apps that either do amazing job enlarging, sharpening or denoising and then it does a little bit of the other but not so well - they should instead create a one stop solution for everything. There are files where you want two of them and sometimes all three to the max.

 

[Bebop]

I haven't got the latest version of Sharpen AI, so it may have improved. Perhaps one of the options works better than the others for film.

The first version I had didn't have the mask facility. The mask allows you to stop some areas of the image being sharpened. I found for instance it would do a great job with a surfer but do weird things with the water, so being able to mask out the water was a big step forward.

I use Photolab and not Lightroom these days, and the ability to use the mask when sharpening in Lightroom is something that I miss a little.

I don't use Topaz Sharpen AI very often, but for the odd picture it can have an amazing effect. Here is a before and after pic I put into a little talk I did for my camera club. It is possible to recover images that would otherwise have been destined for the bin. I don't usually bother unless it's something special.



Edit:

I found the mask function but it looks like you have to "paint" the areas you want sharp. Typically I am looking for edge sharpness when I sharpen and the masking tool in LR allows me to very quickly apply it.

Before I give up with the trial, does anyone know if this is a feature (auto-mask with an overlay)?

TIA!

I've only ever painted 'out' areas that I didn't want sharpening. I don't usually use the mask - I tend to hit the auto button and then update the preview. If it is too sharp to my tastes, I then adjust the sharpening slider and update the preview again, and keep doing that until it looks how I'd like.

 

[Bebop]

ignore - meant to add above...

 

[Harlequin565]

Here is a before and after pic

OK, that is amazing. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong again. Negatives scan in like raw files - i.e. unsharpened. I do that deliberately - the scan software also has sharpening. But it's always based on the fact that the original image was accurately focussed and used a correct shutter speed. I just chuck stuff that's (unintentionally) blurred due to my error. Maybe I should see what it does with a misfire...

 

[Dave Canon]

Thanks Dave. That might be the case for digital but sadly it's not for film. Sharpened grain looks awful. I use edge sharpening just to sharpen the edges and leave softer textures untouched.

I'm guessing the AI is expecting a digital file where "all noise is bad" and isn't really set up for film use. Back to LR!

I can imagine that film is more of a challenge. However, I also remove the noise before sharpening using Topaz DeNoise AI. I do not have a scanner and images which I scanned from film many years ago have a colour space not recognised by PS so cannot easily test this myself.

Dave

 

[Harlequin565]

Right. I'm off to bed. I must be doing something wrong with this. To me the only difference between the left (original) and right ("sharpened") is more noise. This (particularly bad) example is off a roll taken today. It was down at 1/15 hand held and I wasn't hopeful and it obviously came out badly blurred.

Doubt you can see anything in this small screenshot, but here goes... Certainly nothing like windsurfer dude(tte) above.

 

[Ben johns]

I prefer using the high pass filter in photoshop to sharpen film. Niks sharpen software looks very similar. Like the high pass filter it’s subtle enough that it doesn’t “look sharpened”, to me anyway

 

[Box Brownie]

Right. I'm off to bed. I must be doing something wrong with this. To me the only difference between the left (original) and right ("sharpened") is more noise. This (particularly bad) example is off a roll taken today. It was down at 1/15 hand held and I wasn't hopeful and it obviously came out badly blurred.

Doubt you can see anything in this small screenshot, but here goes... Certainly nothing like windsurfer dude(tte) above.

View attachment 312375

I suggest you try each method and see the differences...................why? Well on previous versions "Stabilise" did the best job even on fully static subjects, IMO it is not about being bound to the method that seems most appropriate but seeing the result(s) and choosing what you prefer

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Right. I'm off to bed. I must be doing something wrong with this. To me the only difference between the left (original) and right ("sharpened") is more noise. This (particularly bad) example is off a roll taken today. It was down at 1/15 hand held and I wasn't hopeful and it obviously came out badly blurred.

Doubt you can see anything in this small screenshot, but here goes... Certainly nothing like windsurfer dude(tte) above.

View attachment 312375

I would imagine this needs to be on "stabilise" and that will get the whiskers cleaned up but for the rest it may be short of detail. I can't imagine film being too different from digital if your scan resembles a continuous image at 100% rather than lots of coloured dots. If that is the case you probably have to downsize a little first. Medium format should give a reasonable starting point...

 

[Bebop]

@Harlequin One thing to note (it may have changed in later versions), is that the minute you click either side of the line, the preview disappears, so you have to try and grab the line accurately if you wish to move it back and forth. You need to update the preview each time you change something.

As mentioned, it’s definitely worth playing with all the options as I never know which will yield the best results - although in later versions it may show all three I think.

 

[Harlequin565]

I suggest you try each method and see the differences...................why? Well on previous versions "Stabilise" did the best job even on fully static subjects, IMO it is not about being bound to the method that seems most appropriate but seeing the result(s) and choosing what you prefer

Tried them all. They looked the same sadly.

Like a dog with a bone, I grabbed another image and tried that. This is quite low contrast because it's straight off the scanner, no touch ups.
(Also for anyone looking at these and thinking they look blurry, the forum image presentation blurs everything with some compression. The Topaz text on the screenshots above illustrate this)



5600 x 4600 MF Scan. Dusty (foreground cat) with Crow behind him OOF because of DoF. Pulled this into the program because it has both a sharp and blurred subject.

Crow (black cat) was blurry no matter what I tried.

Zooming in on Dusty which is "acceptably sharp" already, Topaz does nothing on the "Sharpen" tab. It's the sort of image I'd do very little with in LR (sharpness wise). If I switch mode to Stabilize, it starts to clean up the hairs on him.

(Original on left for all images)



This is at a detail level that's very cool, but I'd never see on print, and leads me to believe that the sharpening radius is quite low at a pixel level. Lightroom has the ability to adjust the pixel granularity of the sharpening with its radius slider (so I can apply a bigger radius to larger pixel images to get eh same effect). I can't find anything like that here. I wonder if it's set, or whether the "AI" makes a decision on it? If it's an AI decision, then the detail level is too low for me to see at anything other than 100% crops on a computer, or mahoosive prints. I wonder if it's also designed for people who crop heavily?

His face though is another matter...



It's added significant noise (even with "Noise Suppression" slider high, and "Extra Noise Suppression" ticked). Again - it has increased the sharpness, but at unacceptable cost. Admittedly I might be able to get rid of it or lessen it with NR but that will also damage any grain in the image.

Thanks for all the replies folks. It gives me confidence that I've not missed something stupid. The auto-mask function and radius slider in LR are still the most efficient way for me to sharpen images.

I prefer using the high pass filter in photoshop to sharpen film.

I think I remember somewhere, could have been Scott Kelby, that LRs sharpen tool is lifted straight from Photoshop using that technology. As soon as I heard that, I stopped using High Pass sharpening and switched to LR. Once I got my head round how it worked, I got better results (and much quicker without the switch to another app)

 

[Bebop]

Well there was no harm investigating. There is also a denoise AI program which Topaz says should be the first thing in your workflow, but I’ve rarely bothered using both. It’s quite rare for me to bother with the sharpening program to be honest.

I use Photolab these days and I find I do far less processing than when I used Lightroom. I still feel I’m learning how to get the best out of it, but the deep prime noise reduction is amazing. I have it set up so that on opening the file it applies an ‘optics module’ for my camera and lens combination, so it automatically adjusts for lens aberration etc. I’m guessing with vintage lenses and cameras this would be of no use.

I’d be happy to try running one of your scanned pics through Photolab to see how it renders if you’d like me to.

 

[Harlequin565]

I’d be happy to try running one of your scanned pics through Photolab to see how it renders if you’d like me to.

I don't really want more apps for photography workflow, I just got a bit sucked in because sharpening is the one bit of pp I always need to do. I quite like grain (when I want it) and just shoot very low speed film when I don't.

I think CA is a purely digital "feature" and doesn't occur on film. I don't shoot much colour though so could be wrong.

But thanks for the offer though. Very kind of you.

 

[sirch]

IDK but @Bebop's example has very identifiable edges, either colour blocks or strong edge contrast, if you look at the bottom right edge of the wind surfer where the light grey board is against the grey sea it hasn't done as good a job from what I can see. OTOH Ian, your images do not have such as clear distinction, partly due to monochrome and I guess partly because fur has by its nature less distinct edges

 

[Ben johns]

Tried them all. They looked the same sadly.

Like a dog with a bone, I grabbed another image and tried that. This is quite low contrast because it's straight off the scanner, no touch ups.
(Also for anyone looking at these and thinking they look blurry, the forum image presentation blurs everything with some compression. The Topaz text on the screenshots above illustrate this)

View attachment 312378

5600 x 4600 MF Scan. Dusty (foreground cat) with Crow behind him OOF because of DoF. Pulled this into the program because it has both a sharp and blurred subject.

Crow (black cat) was blurry no matter what I tried.

Zooming in on Dusty which is "acceptably sharp" already, Topaz does nothing on the "Sharpen" tab. It's the sort of image I'd do very little with in LR (sharpness wise). If I switch mode to Stabilize, it starts to clean up the hairs on him.

(Original on left for all images)

View attachment 312382

This is at a detail level that's very cool, but I'd never see on print, and leads me to believe that the sharpening radius is quite low at a pixel level. Lightroom has the ability to adjust the pixel granularity of the sharpening with its radius slider (so I can apply a bigger radius to larger pixel images to get eh same effect). I can't find anything like that here. I wonder if it's set, or whether the "AI" makes a decision on it? If it's an AI decision, then the detail level is too low for me to see at anything other than 100% crops on a computer, or mahoosive prints. I wonder if it's also designed for people who crop heavily?

His face though is another matter...

View attachment 312389

It's added significant noise (even with "Noise Suppression" slider high, and "Extra Noise Suppression" ticked). Again - it has increased the sharpness, but at unacceptable cost. Admittedly I might be able to get rid of it or lessen it with NR but that will also damage any grain in the image.

Thanks for all the replies folks. It gives me confidence that I've not missed something stupid. The auto-mask function and radius slider in LR are still the most efficient way for me to sharpen images.


I think I remember somewhere, could have been Scott Kelby, that LRs sharpen tool is lifted straight from Photoshop using that technology. As soon as I heard that, I stopped using High Pass sharpening and switched to LR. Once I got my head round how it worked, I got better results (and much quicker without the switch to another app)

Oh really?? I’ll have to look. I don’t usually sharpen digital and as I’m usually already in photoshop when I remove dust from film i just do it there

 

[Bebop]

IDK but @Bebop's example has very identifiable edges, either colour blocks or strong edge contrast, if you look at the bottom right edge of the wind surfer where the light grey board is against the grey sea it hasn't done as good a job from what I can see. OTOH Ian, your images do not have such as clear distinction, partly due to monochrome and I guess partly because fur has by its nature less distinct edges

The funny thing is I often think Sharpen AI works better on fur and feathers than it does on other things. I don't like what it's done to the sea on the horizon. This windsurfer image was to be binned - the next in the series was sharp, but I just used it as an example. Topaz also wouldn't open my file (because it's an old version), so I had to make it a DNG which I don't usually use.

@Harlequin565 I found when I first went to Photolab I was struggling with getting my pictures sharp when I exported them - after having felt I knew what I was doing in Lightroom. It turned out I needed to use the bicubic sharper export option on raw files instead of the bicubic option. Each bit of software comes with it's own strengths and weaknesses and learning curve, but at least you can put the Topaz idea to rest now

Just for info - this screenshot below shows a squirrel using Photolab with Deep Prime option set on the left, and the right has been run through Denoise AI and then Sharpen AI. The right is sharper but I prefer the Photolab result. I think this was ISO 6400 if I remember rightly, so I don't think sharpness is 'everything'.

 

[dcash29]

Bebop - Have you used 'colour noise reduction' in Denoise on the squirrel image?

 

[Bebop]

Bebop - Have you used 'colour noise reduction' in Denoise on the squirrel image?

To be honest I can't remember now what settings I used, but I did take it through Denoise first and then Sharpen - which is not something I would normally bother with. I did these screenshots in Feb for a talk. I also don't have the latest versions so they may have improved now.

I haven't used Denoise since I've had the Deep Prime option because it works so well for me and I don't have to leave Photolab to use it either. It still takes ages on export, but then so does Topaz, and my computer is old now so only at the cusp of coping.

 

[dcash29]

Ok no problem

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Since v3 came out I feel like this is giving really substandard results in stabilise and focus modules. They look like some mild orton effect with haloes around edges. I feel like going back to latest v2 for now.

Anyone else noticed the same?