Adapted telephoto lenses on the X2D

[JCM-Photos]

Topaz sharpen AI is not meant as a current sharpening tool it is a salvage tool for blurred pictures, that's also why within it you have to choose between different algorithms such as: subject motion, camera shake, misfocus,...

[tenmangu81]

Agree. Topaz Sharpen AI (or the more recent Topaz Photo AI) should be used in very specific situations, such as motion blur, out of focus, etc... With cameras such as X2D or even X1D, you don't need it except when you should absolutely rescue a very important but blurry picture.
My workflow starts with a zero sharpening, zero noise reduction, lens correction only preset.

[MGrayson]

Speaking of sharpening, Phocus and Lightroom have fairly aggressive sharpening for X2D files as their defaults. It's easy to forget both the default sharpening and LR's default color profile (which is probably not the one you want) when importing FFF or 3FR files. This is especially bothersome when comparing two camera systems (e.g., X2D and Leica S3), where the import from one system may seem sharper "by default", but it's an illusion of the import settings.

[hcubell]

Topaz sharpen AI is not meant as a current sharpening tool it is a salvage tool for blurred pictures, that's also why within it you have to choose between different algorithms such as: subject motion, camera shake, misfocus,...

That has not been my experience. I long ago stopped using the sharpening tool in the raw converter for files I work on heavily for print, whether I useLightroom, Capture One or Phocus. I just leave the sharpening on in Lightroom or Phocus for evaluating files for print or web output. The sharpening tools in those programs are quite primitive compared to Focus Magic and Sharpen AI, even for capture sharpening. I turn off any sharpening in the raw converter, and do my capture sharpening on a TIFF  in Photoshop on a duplicate image layer evaluating the settings by examining the image at 100% on screen. I find both Focus Magic and Sharpen AI to work exceptionally well with well focused images taken with an X1D and an X2D and XCD lenses. However, with Sharpen AI, you have to know how to choose which model to use and how to adjust the parameters. It's a fallacy that Sharpen AI is only appropriate for "out of focus" images or images that suffer from "motion blur." That is how the models are labeled by Topaz, but used judiciously, the results, IMO, are just way more effective than the alternatives, even with otherwise "sharp" images. AI technology is the future for sharpening, noise reduction and image up scaling. Adobe has just jumped into it with its new AI noise reduction tool, which is just remarkable.

[tenmangu81]

Speaking of sharpening, Phocus and Lightroom have fairly aggressive sharpening for X2D files as their defaults. It's easy to forget both the default sharpening and LR's default color profile (which is probably not the one you want) when importing FFF or 3FR files. This is especially bothersome when comparing two camera systems (e.g., X2D and Leica S3), where the import from one system may seem sharper "by default", but it's an illusion of the import settings.

I agree. I just adjust sharpening at zero on importing. What do you mean by "LR's default color profile" ? Which one is it ?

[tenmangu81]

@hcubell:
In which circumstances do you need to sharpen images more than obtained straight from the camera ? Is it for very large prints, for instance ?

[JCM-Photos]

80% of my files need no more than Phocus treatment with sharpness turned off, sufficient for perfect A2 prints
20% remaining go additionally through other soft for dust removing, focus stacking, stitching...

When producing copies for screens, the screen resolution downsizing with Lancsoz or similar algorithm brings itself enough additional sharpening

[hcubell]

@hcubell:
In which circumstances do you need to sharpen images more than obtained straight from the camera ? Is it for very large prints, for instance ?

The basic workflow for sharpening digital files, even from high resolution cameras, was established 20 years or so ago by Bruce Fraser: capture sharpening, creative sharpening, and output sharpening. There may be some cameras like the Fuji GFX 50S where the microlenses in the sensor are designed to "create" files that are sharper (or too sharp) out of the camera, but every camera I have ever used benefits from some degree of capture sharpening. Many people use the tools in LR or PS to do the capture sharpening. I don't. I used Focus Magic for many years and more recently Topaz Sharpen AI. Each to his own, but I find those tools significantly more effective than LR and other raw converters in producing more naturally sharp files than LR or other raw converters. Would I use these tools if I were processing hundreds/thousands of files for web or small prints? No. I process relatively few files large format fine art prints, so I can take my time to achieve optimum results. Moreover, just because the Sharpen AI technology can work wonders with digital files from digital cameras and scans that are less than optimum in native sharpness, does not mean that the technology was not designed to also be  highly effective with properly focused files. I have done my own testing over the years and do not doubt what I see with my eyes, but YMMV.

[hcubell]

Speaking of sharpening, Phocus and Lightroom have fairly aggressive sharpening for X2D files as their defaults. It's easy to forget both the default sharpening and LR's default color profile (which is probably not the one you want) when importing FFF or 3FR files. This is especially bothersome when comparing two camera systems (e.g., X2D and Leica S3), where the import from one system may seem sharper "by default", but it's an illusion of the import settings.

Yes, it makes the comparison of IQ from files from different cameras quite challenging. The only way to do it is to use a raw converter that permits you to completely turn off sharpening, and then apply the same sharpening settings to both files. If you just try to individually optimize the files with different sharpening settings, it introduces a significant element of subjectivity. Unfortunately, it's not easy to know if there is in camera sharpening automatically applied, or if the raw converter creates default sharpening even if you set it to zero. Hasselblad's Flexcolor software was like that. To zero out the sharpening, you had to dial in a negative number.

[JCM-Photos]

Sharpness (without sharpening) depends a lot from the used RAW engine.

Hasselblad let us choose in Phocus between mainly two V1 and V3
The old V1 is very smooth in transitions, colors, I would call it the beauty engine. I use it a lot for boudoir, women portraits
The recent V3 is very crisp, it's the landscape, architecture engine.

In good old film days, I recall Kodak Vericolor existed also in 2 versions S and L, similar renderings and uses than Hasselblad V1 and V3 engines.

Even tools such as clarity are totally different in V1 and V3,
in V1 it doesn't sharpen it just clarifies general contrast, (at excess even haloing like old LF films)
in V3 it works on micro contrast and sharpens.

[MGrayson]

Mamiya 645 105-210 arrived. Freakishly good lens for $150! Pics later.

[JCM-Photos]

@hcubell

The world changed a lot in the 20 past years

5 to 12 Mpix APS-C sensors with a thick IR filter, narrow lens mounts, strong anti aliasing filter, lenses from film age with steep rays in the corners needed a lot of sharpening to look OK when printed.

Today all this is different, no more antialiasing, ultra thin IR filters, 10 times more pixels, huge lens mounts and lenses designed for it, it is possible to print large with very low to none sharpening, for a nice natural look. Adding sharpening only gives a bad additional digital look.

[danord]

Mamiya 645 105-210 arrived. Freakishly good lens for $150! Pics later.

Wow, you were quick to pull the trigger on that one! First impressions? I was struck by build quality, size and how it handled on the X2D. Looking forward to see your test!

danord

[MGrayson]

Mamiya 645 105-210 arrived. Freakishly good lens for $150! Pics later.

Wow, you were quick to pull the trigger on that one! First impressions? I was struck by build quality, size and how it handled on the X2D. Looking forward to see your test!

danord

I deleted the star target tests because I had a chance to take the 135, 150, and zoom out for a landscape test. I may have a bad copy of the 150/3.2N. It was never sharp near the edges, and CA was present out to f/11 - the zoom was better under all circumstances. I'll process and post the images later.

Matt

[danord]

[/quote]

I deleted the star target tests because I had a chance to take the 135, 150, and zoom out for a landscape test. I may have a bad copy of the 150/3.2N. It was never sharp near the edges, and CA was present out to f/11 - the zoom was better under all circumstances. I'll process and post the images later.

Matt
[/quote]

The HC 150N? That is a surprise. For some reason (don't ask ) I have two copies of that one, and both are equally sharp all over the frame. Very, very little CA at f11. Could be a bad copy, yes. I haven't made a formal side-by-side comparison with that one and the zoom @150mm, but a brief look tells me the zoom is somewhat sharper in every part of the frame.
However, I bet the xcd135 crushes all the other lenses in every respect. Except for zooming flexibility.