[Barry_S]

Anybody try Topaz InFocus yet? Looks good if it does what they show on the web site.

Barry

[velingara]

Just downloaded today with the discount. It does sharpen things up a bit. There is a 30 day free trial in which you can try it. I tried the free trial of the denoise software; I may have to keep working with it, since I didn't see a huge difference in noise reduction.

[dosdan]

I'm comparing InFocus (30-day trial) to Focus Magic (which I own). I prefer the output of FM at the moment, but it's early days yet in the testing.

Dan

[goldenarrow]

I'm comparing InFocus (30-day trial) to Focus Magic (which I own). I prefer the output of FM at the moment, but it's early days yet in the testing.

Dan

I read the dpreview forum comments and it seems only one person thinks IF is better than FM, and that was only marginally some bird feathers blown-up to 100%. Seems like IF and FM are more or less equal in performance. I use FM and find it adds very harsh artifacts with the smallest of settings. I use it sparingly and only at the very end of PP. Tried using it at the beginning after raw conversion and every example had harsh artifacts amplified the more PP I did. I also tried Raw Therapee's deconvolution filter and got similar results. In sum, too much time in front of the computer to get too little results!

Is this your general experience too with deconvolution software???

GA

[7samurai]

Just tried InFocus and I liked it enough to purchase it. Topaz had a coupon on their page that brought the cost down to $29.99, expire 12/3.

Don't own Focus Magic so I can't compare the two.

Quick observations:
It will not fix a incorrectly focused picture.
It will not change depth of field.
It has a deblur feature, but I've not figured out how to use it and it seem to leave artifacts if the settings are to high.
The sharpness feature is pretty nice. It was the primary feature that sold me. If you push this feature, it starts leaving artifacts that look like noise.

7samurai

[dosdan]

Tried using it at the beginning after raw conversion and every example had harsh artifacts amplified the more PP I did.

I use FM in PSP X. My workflow:

1. Do whatever I can do in the SilkyPix Pro 4 raw converter as it's closer to the source and in 16-bit. (I always shoot raw.) No sharpening, NR or output USM sharpening if I'm going to use FM - export as 16-bit TIFF.

2. In PSP X, apply Clarify (if suitable) - it's a 16-bit operation.

3. After Clarification (if any), convert to 8-bit and apply FM. (Only 8-bit plugin support in PSP.) I think it's best to apply FM to the unsharpened, full-size image. Max. radius would be 5px-6px, usually 2px-4px. sometimes 1px. I l look at the lips & eyes. When I see a halo, I back off. It's better to under-compensate then it is to over-compensate. Sometimes the halo is just visible in the magnified preview but not in the final version.

4. Apply duplication/resizing if sending a copy to the web.

5. Apply output USM, if needed, on the various sized versions of the original (after resizing, of course).

If a picture is noisy, I usually denoise it in SP and forego FM.

Dan.

[abmj]

I am also testing InFocus and comparing to NIK Sharpener Pro 3.0.

So far, I find InFocus to be much more user intensive and less intuitive. If I am willing to spend several minutes in the sharpening process, I can get some nice results. Unfortunately, there are occasions when I just want to get good (read - default) sharpening quickly and in that case, the presets in Sharpener Pro really shine.

The other problem I am having is the need to run Denoise 5 twice - once at the beginning of my workflow as always and again at the end to clean up the noise artifacts that InFocus always seems to create.

Still testing.

[7samurai]

I am also testing InFocus and comparing to NIK Sharpener Pro 3.0.

So far, I find InFocus to be much more user intensive and less intuitive. If I am willing to spend several minutes in the sharpening process, I can get some nice results. Unfortunately, there are occasions when I just want to get good (read - default) sharpening quickly and in that case, the presets in Sharpener Pro really shine.

The other problem I am having is the need to run Denoise 5 twice - once at the beginning of my workflow as always and again at the end to clean up the noise artifacts that InFocus always seems to create.

Still testing.

The Deblur tool seems to be very confusing so far to me. It has had mixed results.

I've been playing with the presets and find them to be to aggressive. I find I'm almost better off turning off Deblur.

7samurai

[goldenarrow]

Thanks DOSDAN, for your workflow example. I also use a combo of tools (in rough order, RAW-->TIFF, Raw Therapee, PSP X2 Ultimate, PS Elements 9, and Focus Magic last, then JPEG cleanup) and just experimenting with what gives the best balance of qualities. It will be interesting to hear if InFocus sharpening tools are any better than what PSP or PSE gives in the High Pass and/or USM areas. It seems from the dpreview site comments, that InFocus does not really do any better than Focus Magic in the deconvolution department - they seem equal reading the descriptions of what people have tried. Glad to hear that people are experimenting with this.

I agree with someone above (in general) that these types of tools do not fix a poorly focused photo and it is way too easy to create artifacts. My description of the artifacts is like someone putting a single pane of cheap, gritty glass over the whole photo - makes it impossible to enlarge and also flattens the image so it loses some of its 3D qualities.

By the way, Focus Magic WILL work on 16bit files in Elements 9. PSP cannot and tech support was clueless to help me.

GA

[ivoire]

I tried it and its quite useful. enter the code 'super sharp' and you get it for $29.95. Pretty decent deal imop.

[Barry_S]

Using InFocus alone it don't seem to work for me. But when I use ps unsharpen mask first, then InFocus then I think it works well. I then hit it with a small amount of denoise and the picture look better.
I looked at InFocus alone next to PS um and ps looked abit better. But the two together work the best.

[robgo2]

I follow a 3 stage sharpening protocol, and I will be incorporating InFocus into it. The first stage is light raw pre-sharpening in Capture One. After conversion to TIFF, I use InFocus for deblurring only. Previously, I had been using the Nik Sharpener Pro's Pre-sharpen at this stage, but I think that it makes sense to deblur at some point. After further editing and re-sizing, I use Sharpener Pro for output sharpening. For one slightly out of focus image, I also used InFocus deblurring just prior to output sharpening, I got a better result than with sharpening alone. So, I think that the deblur function is effective.

Once upon a time, I used Focus Magic and then Smart Sharpen, but I cannot compare them to InFocus.

Rob

[raider]

I m interested to buy infocus. 30 bucks I can afford. If I use infocus as a plug in under xnview do I process in 12 bit or 8 bit?

[Eric Seavey]

I just compared infocus and focus magic last night. For my applications FM seems to work better. I first apply noise ninja, then reduce my image size and then after FM I reduce it further and apply sharpening with focal blade.

[mysticcowboy]

I've been using InFocus since it first came out. There's good news and bad news. On the good side, it can really bring out detail. I find that I need to use complicated Photoshop recipes with the High Pass filter and luminance blending modes less often. The same with extreme Unsharp-mask settings for increased local contrast. On the bad side, it's not very intuitive, though not bad for version one software. If you're not careful, it's very easy to introduce sharpening artifacts. On the whole, however, I think that it's worth the price and effort to learn.