Digital BW, The Print

Mitch,

I agree. FocalBlade is a very nice product which I evaluated before going with PhotoKit Sharpener. I went with PhotoKit because

1. I happen to agree that sharpening should be done in more than 1 pass.
2. I absolutely love the sharpening brushes.
3. Being a prior owner of the original PhotoKit product, I received a discount.

Had it not been for the above, I probably would have gone with FocalBlade.

As for Fred's website I do not participate in his forums, but I do find a couple of his tools very useful.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: "Glenn Mitchell" <gmitchel850@...>
> Date: 2004/01/05 Mon AM 12:05:55 EST
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] FocalBlade (was Re: Miranda Actions)
> 
> I avoid FredMiranda.com and Fred's actions.
> 
> I own several. He makes a fine product. The problem is his site 
> masquerades as an open site, and it's censored. Quite heavily, IMHO.
> 
> You'll have to look carefully to find it. Threads get closed. Then 
> disappear. Messages get edited for content by moderators. Etc.
> 
> As an artist, I loathe censorship, so I don't want to subsidize it. 
> I wish the site was open and tolerant. I'd return in a second, and 
> I'd use some of Fred's actions.
> 
> Enough about buying Fred's actions . . .
> 
> I agree about Photokit Sharpener being an automated tool for what 
> you can do with layers in PS. Being able to sharpen lighter and 
> darker pixels is no trick. Just create two copy layers. Set the 
> blending mode of one to lighten, the other to darken. Then use USM 
> for both. Adjust the effect with layer opacity, blend if, etc.
> 
> I use FocalBlade for sharpening. It's about half the price of 
> Photokit Sharpener and is more powerful. It's a PS add-in, not an 
> automation tool for setting layer and USM settings.
> 
> Support is great! I just got notified the other by Harold that a new 
> interim release was available. He's always improving the product. I 
> get notices of interim releases every month or so.
> 
> You can control sharpening separately for edges and surfaces. If 
> white or black halos are a problem, you can adjust them separately, 
> too.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
<Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> Mitch,
> 
> I agree. FocalBlade is a very nice product which I evaluated 
before going with PhotoKit Sharpener. I went with PhotoKit because
> 
> 1. I happen to agree that sharpening should be done in more than 1 
pass.
> 2. I absolutely love the sharpening brushes.
> 3. Being a prior owner of the original PhotoKit product, I 
received a discount.
> 
> Had it not been for the above, I probably would have gone with 
FocalBlade.
> 
> As for Fred's website I do not participate in his forums, but I do 
find a couple of his tools very useful.
> 
> Alan Huntley

You do not need PhotoKit Sharpener to do sharpening in three passes. 
I typically also use two or three sharpening passes.

The first pass in PhotoKit Sharpener is just to restore sharpness 
lost during digital capture. You can use a quick USM on a separate 
layer in PS. Something like 300,0.8,2. If you want a little more 
control, you can use two layers, one with Lighten blending mode and 
the other with Darken blending mode.

You also do not need Photokit Sharpener to brush in/out sharpening 
effect. That's nothing more than a layer mask in PS using a brush 
with an opacity of around 20%. You could also get there with the 
History Brush, BTW, although I prefer a layer mask for future 
flexibility.

PhotoKit Sharpener is just a sophisticated version of a PS Action. 
It uses Automation in order to provide a little more UI flexibility 
and to protect itself with a trial period. I think $100 is too much 
for what it does. But that's just one opinion. (It literally does 
nothing you can do quickly and easily in PS with layers and layer 
masks. Once you learn the tricks and see you can use them as quickly 
and easily as using PhotoKit Sharpener, you're likely to feel 
burned. IE, why did I spend $95 on that.)

There are tools out there that do more than use layers and layer 
masks and edge sharpening. FocalBlade is one of those products. For 
example, with Focal Blade, you can divide the preview screen into 
multiple horizontal or vertical slices, with each getting different 
sharpening settings. This lets you compare different settings 
visually, so you do not wind up trying a setting and then deciding 
to step back and try again.

Push the logic of my statement about what you can do in PS, and I'll 
agree, you can get the same outcome in PS without ImageBlade. The 
big claim of ImageBlade is the ability to separately sharpen edges 
and surfaces and to control white and black halos. You could do the 
same with USM sharpening on four layers in PS. Black edge 
sharpening. White edge sharepning. Then invert the mask and use it 
for black surface sharpening and white surface sharpening.

FocalBlade does not use layers. You can get there, but you need to 
run FocalBlade on a copy of the image and then copy the result back 
as a layer. Kludgey, IMHO. Limits the usefulness.

What you cannot get in PS alone is the visual comparisons that 
FocalBlade provides, the ability to go from sharpening settings for 
a monitor and for print with a click, etc.

Both FocalBlade and PhotoKit Sharpener make you more productive than 
working with layers and layer masks on your own. FocalBlade is 
quicker to use, provides more visual feedback, has great customer 
service, and costs 50% of what PhotoKit Sharpener would cost me or 
33% of Nik! Sharpener. So, for me, it was an easy decision.

I agree that Fred Miranda makes some very useful actions and add-
ins. He does a fine job in crafting them, and they are very 
reasonably priced. If only his site was open and tolerant!!!! Or at 
least, did not pretend to be so!

Cheers,

Mitch

Mitch,

> You do not need PhotoKit Sharpener to do sharpening in three passes.

Agreed.
 
> Both FocalBlade and PhotoKit Sharpener make you more productive than 
> working with layers and layer masks on your own. FocalBlade is 
> quicker to use, provides more visual feedback, has great customer 
> service, and costs 50% of what PhotoKit Sharpener would cost me or 
> 33% of Nik! Sharpener. So, for me, it was an easy decision.

My point, exactly. I'm fully aware that most anything can be done in PS, alone, by the more sophisticated user. However, I personally like the smoother workflow and productivity gain of some of the better tools available.

Alan Huntley

Monday, January 5, 2004, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:

AHcn> Mitch,

>> You do not need PhotoKit Sharpener to do sharpening in three passes.

AHcn> Agreed.

>> Both FocalBlade and PhotoKit Sharpener make you more productive than
>> working with layers and layer masks on your own. FocalBlade is 
>> quicker to use, provides more visual feedback, has great customer 
>> service, and costs 50% of what PhotoKit Sharpener would cost me or 
>> 33% of Nik! Sharpener. So, for me, it was an easy decision.

AHcn> My point, exactly. I'm fully aware that most anything can
AHcn> be done in PS, alone, by the more sophisticated user. However, I
AHcn> personally like the smoother workflow and productivity gain of
AHcn> some of the better tools available.

AHcn> Alan Huntley

I would agree fully Alan.  But I truly think in this case the doing it
yourself vs. Photokit is not that much of a productivity and
time-saver, especially if you look at from the more control one has on
an image-by-image basis, especially in part 2.

That said, if PK cost $35 I would buy it. But $99 for a few actions?
No way. And even if one would want it because they feel they lack the
PS skill to do it themselves the 30-60 minutes or so to learn and
practice the layers and methods laid out by Mitch would be time and
effort VERY well invested in applying these tools in other situations
and for other reasons in your continued photographic workflows later

Adding productivity is one thing, but those who may use it as a
replacement for laziness or lack of drive to learn something new is
another. Not accusing you of either but there seems to be a desire for
some kind of turn-key approaches to everything in photography from AF to
AE, to scanning, color management and now sharpening. IMO it does
nothing to further enhance one's ability to create art---quite the
opposite actually.

-- 
Best regards,
 Richard                            mailto:richard@...

> I would agree fully Alan.  But I truly think in this case the 
doing it
> yourself vs. Photokit is not that much of a productivity and
> time-saver, especially if you look at from the more control one 
has on
> an image-by-image basis, especially in part 2.
> 

I tend to agree. It's hard to determine whether saving a few minutes 
on most of your images is worthwhile.

If you are a hobbyist or weekend photographer, it's hard to argue 
that saving a little time is worth close to $100.

However, if one is a busy pro, time is very much money. Even a 
savings of a few minutes on each image you process could be very 
cost-effective.

I tried PhotoKit Sharpener when reviews cropped up on luminous-
landscape.com, outbackphoto.com, etc. I did not find it to be much 
of a time savings compared with sharpening with layers using various 
blending modes, blend if conditions, and opacity levels.

I do think that others will find it quicker to use something like 
PhotoKit Sharpener because they are not yet experienced with the 
various sharpening techniques in PS.

The actions on FredMiranda.com are even less sophisticated. A 
handful of USM settings under the guise of Low, Medium, High labels. 
A couple of edge sharpening and highpass sharpening techniques 
thrown in. But they certainly are popular. You'll see people touting 
them here. Why? I'm not convinced it's any easier to invoke an 
action for sharpening and select a level than it is to go 
Filter|Sharpen|Unsharp Mask and enter settings (and do it on the 
Lab "L" channel or use Fade|Luminosity) *UNLESS* you do not 
understand how USM works and what those settings affect.

So, I do agree that these actions can be a crutch that impedes 
learning how to take control over the process for even better 
results.

(I, too, am not claiming the other poster is relying on it as such. 
I'm making general statements, not attempting to impugn anyone in 
particular.)


> That said, if PK cost $35 I would buy it. But $99 for a few 
actions?

I concur. I spent $45, I think for FocalBlade.

Also, FocalBlade is much better about their upgrade path. Like the 
folks who produce CaptureOne, the folks who make PhotoKit Sharpener 
seem to be more mercenary about upgrades.


> Adding productivity is one thing, but those who may use it as a
> replacement for laziness or lack of drive to learn something new is
> another.

I agree.

I don't use FocalBlade all that much. I am more apt to use it for a 
quick preview for a client or to prepare an 800 pixel wide Web image 
than for finished fine art prints.

I prefer the greater control I get by using various techniques on 
layers in PS. That's the obsessive-compulsive craftsman in me, again.

I do understand that many people are oriented more towards snapshots 
than fine art, so these tools certainly have both appeal and utility 
in those circumstances. You can get fine results with these tools, 
too. I find I can get better results when I take the time to do the 
sharpening myself, and I get more satisfaction as an artist from the 
process.


> Not accusing you of either but there seems to be a desire for
> some kind of turn-key approaches to everything in photography from 
AF to
> AE, to scanning, color management and now sharpening. IMO it does
> nothing to further enhance one's ability to create art---quite the
> opposite actually.
> 

There definitely is a growing desire for turn-key approaches, 
especially when it comes to techniques that require experience 
and/or careful consideration. Sharpening is one example. A lot of 
people do not understand how sharpening works, so a "black box" with 
a handful of presets is welcome. Same with B&W conversion. They'll 
go for an add-in or something quick like Image|Mode|Grayscale or 
Channel Mixer, because working with channels and/or adjustment 
layers is more confusing and more effort.

What's unfortunate is that when people get comfortable with these 
tools, they often grow no further. They do not realize that their 
B&W image could have more Ansel Adams-like contrast, if they knew 
about other techniques and understood how to use them.

The example that comes to mind are the Dodge and Burn tools in PS. 
Anyone can learn how to use them in PS in a couple of minutes. PS 
lets you have a little control, too. You can limit the effect of 
shadows, midtones, or highlights. But there is a better method that 
will give you all of that and a lot more control. You can even 
adjust today and reduce the effect tomorrow, which you cannot do 
with the Dodge and Burn tools alone. You create an new layer using 
Overlay bland and a 50% gray fill. Then paint on the layer with 
black and white to dodge and burn. Regrettably, most people never 
grow past the Dodge and Burn tools. :(

Cheers,

Mitch

Richard,

> That said, if PK cost $35 I would buy it. But $99 for a few actions?
> No way.

Agreed. However, registered customers of the original PK were offered a fairly decent discount. Can't remember exactly what it was, but it wasn't as low as $35. <g>

> Adding productivity is one thing, but those who may use it as a
> replacement for laziness or lack of drive to learn something new is
> another. Not accusing you of either but there seems to be a desire for
> some kind of turn-key approaches to everything in photography from AF to
> AE, to scanning, color management and now sharpening. IMO it does
> nothing to further enhance one's ability to create art---quite the
> opposite actually.

No argument, here. To wit, I still use LF cameras which certainly are pretty primitive tools by today's standards! I guess that's part of my point, if recognized industry experts--the likes of those associated with Pixel Genius or other "digital brains" such as the author of FocalBlade--provide the level of tools we're discussing here, then put me on the "buy list." To be honest, I really don't like "fussing" with the computer...I'd much rather be out in the world making images! During my analog wet darkroom days, I always had many negs waiting to be printed that never saw a piece of paper. Not saying this is the right way, just my way. ;>)

Alan Huntley