I am just comparing sharpening in Dxo PR4 and sharpening in LR classic.
Both pictures are processed in PR4 using Deepprime XD2s. The only difference is that in one photo I set lens softness to “standard” and in the other picture i disabled lens softness and used LRC for sharpening. I tuned LRC sharpening to my liking.
Can you guess which is which?
Which one do you like better?
EDIT: I realized the forum downsizes the image, so I uploaded the full version to google drive.
The one on the left has more “pop” - probably due to added microcontrast. The wing doesn’t look as flat and the whole bird looks more vivid. The head is slightly oversharpened IMO. I don’t think there’s actually any more detail, just the impression of detail. I’m guessing this is the one with Lens Softness compensation (a.k.a. Lens Sharpness), since DxO’s default sharpening can be a little strong unless the image is noisy or otherwise a bit soft.
I agree, The additional sharpening just makes the existing detail more prominent which is what I actually meant to say in my first post. I also felt the one on the left was slightly over sharpened. I think somewhere between the two images would be just right.
My guess: Left=PR, Right=LR.
I would prefer the left one because of contrast (there is a slight difference) and better subject separation, and the right one if I was in a peaceful, relaxed mood.
Picture on the right has typical “LR grain”, which enlarged looks a bit like maze, perhaps caused by some LR sharpness setting. PL sometimes does a similar thing but it looks a bit different. The left picture looks like PR ‘Standard’ setting was used, equivalent to LSC=+1.0 in PhotoLab (the default there). The picture on the right probably would look similar to PR setting ‘Soft’, which corresponds to PL LSC=0.0 (which is often too sharp for portraits).
Off-topic: PR should have LSC slider like in PL – topic endlessly discussed in this forum, and the PR/LR LSC default is often good maybe for printing but not for the screen.
Thanks everybody for the replies. I would not have expected such an unilaterally vote for PR in favor of LRC, but then I might have come to a biased place
my 2ct: Overall, I agree that PR4 adds more microcontrast, but sometimes this just puts me off: if I wanted micro contrast, I’d use the slider for that. So while PR4 produces an overall pleasing result, LRC is good at doing “just” sharpening and nothing else when asking it to sharpen an image.
It seems that LR adds some dithering to mask sharpening artifacts, but that may depend on your settings (?). It is also important to see what sharpening does on out-of-focus areas, the point mostly missed in many presentations. And one can always find a case and settings setup to prove that A is better than B or vice versa. Trivia: Judge yourself, keeping an eye on your customers.
I would argue with that, but just try ‘Soft’ PR settings. It should be OK for most purposes.
