Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS3 and Photokit Sharpner  (Read 11814 times)
TerryM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« on: July 03, 2007, 02:16:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I just upgraded to cs3 and it has editable and non destructive smart filters. Is there any real advantage to Photokit Sharpner? I shoot  a lot of landscapes. I also use Lightroom  and the 1.1 version adds some sharpening even at 0 setting.

Also, not sure it is a released product for cs3. I am running Win XP, sp2
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 02:48:20 PM by TerryM » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8625



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2007, 04:03:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just upgraded to cs3 and it has editable and non destructive smart filters. Is there any real advantage to Photokit Sharpner? I shoot  a lot of landscapes. I also use Lightroom  and the 1.1 version adds some sharpening even at 0 setting.

Also, not sure it is a released product for cs3. I am running Win XP, sp2
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's nothing new in CS3 that changes what PKS does and did in CS2 which is automating the sharpening based on input and output device and using Bruce Fraser's sharpening workflow:

[a href=\"http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html]http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html[/url]
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2007, 05:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just upgraded to cs3 and it has editable and non destructive smart filters. Is there any real advantage to Photokit Sharpner?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


So, what settings should you use for a 16 MP camera with fine detail edges? How should you sharpen a 240 pixel per inch resolution image that will be printed on matte paper? Know how to do a progressive sharpening? How about a Haze Cutter brush? Can you remember on Friday EXACTLY what numbers you used on an image on Monday and recreative it in 6 months?

If you know the exact numbers above, then you don't need PhotoKin Sharpener...
Logged
TerryM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2007, 05:34:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So, what settings should you use for a 16 MP camera with fine detail edges? How should you sharpen a 240 pixel per inch resolution image that will be printed on matte paper? Know how to do a progressive sharpening? How about a Haze Cutter brush? Can you remember on Friday EXACTLY what numbers you used on an image on Monday and recreative it in 6 months?

If you know the exact numbers above, then you don't need PhotoKin Sharpener...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126288\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi, Jeff. I can't even remember the question, so I guess this means I need to get PhotoKit

What is rc? Can I purchase the rc and will it work on cs3 ok?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2007, 05:53:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What is rc? Can I purchase the rc and will it work on cs3 ok?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126290\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


We've identified some niggling issues with CS3 (and then issues trying to have the one version work with previous Photoshop versions) and we're trying to squash any bugs before we go final release. So, RC mean release candidate...but if you buy now you'll get a serial which will work with the RC and the final GM when we release it...
Logged
TerryM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2007, 06:04:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
We've identified some niggling issues with CS3 (and then issues trying to have the one version work with previous Photoshop versions) and we're trying to squash any bugs before we go final release. So, RC mean release candidate...but if you buy now you'll get a serial which will work with the RC and the final GM when we release it...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great, thanks.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7765



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2007, 08:18:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jeff,

I have a difuse feeling that the output sharpening for injet prints of PKS for CS3  RC (180 and 240 DPI at least) differs slightly from the CS2 version on PC. It seems that it sharpens a less. I use an Epson 4000 on Hahnemuhle PR 308.

I didn't do any rigorous testing though.

Could there be any truth to this or is this just my imagination?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2007, 08:59:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Could there be any truth to this or is this just my imagination?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, not that I am aware off and we've done pretty extensive testing...how are you getting your images to the output stage?
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 09:00:15 PM by Schewe » Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2007, 09:15:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's nothing new in CS3 that changes what PKS does and did in CS2 which is automating the sharpening based on input and output device and using Bruce Fraser's sharpening workflow:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's new in CS3 is that ACR 4.1 has incorporated much of Bruce's capture sharpening workflow. If you decide to use these new ACR sharpening features, you probably wouldn't want to apply PK capture sharpening too. At least that is what I have surmised from Jeff Schewe's posts. You would still use PK for output sharpening.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7765



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2007, 10:04:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, not that I am aware off and we've done pretty extensive testing...how are you getting your images to the output stage?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

Thanks for your reply.

As I said, I am definitely not definite about this, so that it could just be me. I was just wondering whether you were aware of something.

The operations I did were:

1. Open image in PS CS3 Extended from Bridge 2.1,
2. resize without interpolation to the right print width -> the resulting DPI in CS was about 200 (image size is not relevant but it was 30 x 16 inch),
3. I applied output sharpener in inkjet/180 DPI mode,
4. I didn't change the default opacity of the layers created by PKS
5. I flattened the layers
6. Save to non compressed tiff
7. Opened in IP7.0
8. Printed on my Epson 4000 using Hahnemhule Photorag 308.

The prints felt a bit soft compared to what I was typically used to getting with CS2, but I do not have an output of the same image. I should of course try printing out the same image using CS2 on PC but I am not supposed to use that piece of software anymore after my MAc migration, and I also don't want to use too much of my few remaining PR 308 precious square feet.

Anyway, I gess that I'll just have to test some more.

Thanks again.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2007, 10:25:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff,

Thanks for your reply.

As I said, I am definitely not definite about this, so that it could just be me. I was just wondering whether you were aware of something.

The operations I did were:

1. Open image in PS CS3 Extended from Bridge 2.1,
2. resize without interpolation to the right print width -> the resulting DPI in CS was about 200 (image size is not relevant but it was 30 x 16 inch),
3. I applied output sharpener in inkjet/180 DPI mode,
4. I didn't change the default opacity of the layers created by PKS
5. I flattened the layers
6. Save to non compressed tiff
7. Opened in IP7.0
8. Printed on my Epson 4000 using Hahnemhule Photorag 308.

The prints felt a bit soft compared to what I was typically used to getting with CS2, but I do not have an output of the same image. I should of course try printing out the same image using CS2 on PC but I am not supposed to use that piece of software anymore after my MAc migration, and I also don't want to use too much of my few remaining PR 308 precious square feet.

Anyway, I gess that I'll just have to test some more.

Thanks again.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Now you've got me curious.  I am using my original PKS in CS3, but haven't done too much printing with it.  I'll have to do a comparison--and I can use PSCS2, so I will see.

Diane
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2007, 10:47:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1. Open image in PS CS3 Extended from Bridge 2.1,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, what was the condition of the image at this point...was it a raw that had been captured sharpened? Was it a scan? It had to come from somewhere so what I was asking was what had been done to the image prior to getting to the output stage?
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7765



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2007, 11:19:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, what was the condition of the image at this point...was it a raw that had been captured sharpened? Was it a scan? It had to come from somewhere so what I was asking was what had been done to the image prior to getting to the output stage?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126336\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

OK, I see. The image is a PTgui 6.03 stich (average error after optimization is 0.37) made up of 16 Mamiya ZD images converted with Silkypix 3.08 (2 rows of 8 images).



The images were 10 sec exposures that had some pattern noise in them. I used what I think is the best possible combination of noise reduction/sharpening in Silkypix to get rid of the pattern noise without loosing too much detail to painterly effects (some micro detail was lost though). The result is much better than what I can get with Lightroom 1.0 and Raw Developper 1.62 on which I tried extensively as well.

The gap in shaprness I see between a 40 inch wide version of the print sharpened in CS2 and the corresponding 30 inch vertcial bands printed with CS3 is just a bit more than I was expecting.

Again, I am not saying that it is a problem with PKS, I need to investigate more.

Regards,
Bernard
« Last Edit: July 03, 2007, 11:49:46 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

A few images online here!
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5419


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2007, 12:19:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I used what I think is the best possible combination of noise reduction/sharpening in Silkypix to get rid of the pattern noise without loosing too much detail to painterly effects (some micro detail was lost though).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then I would guess that your "capture sharpening" stage was too light and the output stage was expecting a bit stronger capture sharpen. You might try Super Sharpen 1 at a 20-30 opacity prior to output sharpen...
Logged
charleski
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2007, 04:16:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What's new in CS3 is that ACR 4.1 has incorporated much of Bruce's capture sharpening workflow. If you decide to use these new ACR sharpening features, you probably wouldn't want to apply PK capture sharpening too. At least that is what I have surmised from Jeff Schewe's posts. You would still use PK for output sharpening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126324\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. I've now moved over to using solely ACR 4.1's sharpening for the capture phase (I experimented with using a mix, but it was far too much effort). PK is still very useful for creative and output sharpening.
Logged

TerryM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 05, 2007, 10:07:56 AM »
ReplyReply

By the way, I did download the PK Sharpner and so far I am impressed.
Logged
TerryM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2007, 02:50:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
By the way, I did download the PK Sharpner and so far I am impressed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126593\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well. I stopped being impressed. I purchased the pk sharpner and now It needs to be activated and I cannot get it activated. What a terrible way to do business.  Jeff, you say there is an updated dll in the rc page, but I cannot find it.

I had planned a lot of work today and thought I was doing good to go ahead and buy this.  The manual activation asks for a id number which I have no idea what that is. I have the SN.

Anyone out there know how to obtain the updated 'eSellerateEngine.dll' ?
Logged
RonBoyd
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2007, 05:31:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well. I stopped being impressed. I purchased the pk sharpner and now It needs to be activated and I cannot get it activated. What a terrible way to do business.  Jeff, you say there is an updated dll in the rc page, but I cannot find it.

I had planned a lot of work today and thought I was doing good to go ahead and buy this.  The manual activation asks for a id number which I have no idea what that is. I have the SN.

Anyone out there know how to obtain the updated 'eSellerateEngine.dll' ?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Try this. (no quarantees)

[a href=\"http://www.pixelgenius.com/CS3BETA.html]http://www.pixelgenius.com/CS3BETA.html[/url]

and

http://www.driverskit.com/dll/esellerateengine.dll/760.html

(This the result of a Google search.)

Ron
Logged
TerryM
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2007, 06:05:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Try this. (no quarantees)

http://www.pixelgenius.com/CS3BETA.html

and

http://www.driverskit.com/dll/esellerateengine.dll/760.html

(This the result of a Google search.)

Ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was not the latest update, but I finally got the address back from pixelgenius to get the latest. Thanks.

PS: I am not a big fan of activating software. If you as a software vendor are going to require activation, you better MAKE SURE it works and is easy.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2007, 09:45:19 AM by TerryM » Logged
Rick Popham
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 124


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2007, 02:03:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
PS: I am not a big fan of activating software. If you as a software vendor are going to require activation, you better MAKE SURE it works and is easy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I absolutely agree.  At the beginning of the year, I thought I would buy PKS after I upgraded to CS3.  Now I see they've gone to Activation, so I'll be looking for alternatives.

I'm sure PKS is a good product, but I'm tired of having to worry about this BS.  As long as there is a reasonable alternative that DOESN'T require Product Activation, I'll buy THAT product.

Rick
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad