Refocus software

[ajohnw]

I have played around with this type of software a few times and like most wondered if there is any point. Out of curiosity I tried a variant on a shot that has suffered the Olmpus 12-50mm m 4/3 problem - fuzzy images at high resolution. Still not sure why.

This shot has clearly been largely cleaned up. Quickly too. A split second from clicking on it but its a very heavy crop from full frame.



Maybe it works because there are no adjustments!

John
-

[DanK]

There was a long thread about deconvolution software a few weeks ago. Searching on focus magic might bring it up.

Which software did you use?

[ajohnw]

Yes I know. I followed the thread but don't think I posted. I've mentioned before that refocus can do something especially when things finish up with a small image. This result surprised me but the mush in the shot is at a much lower level than any other software I have played around with.

The software is the image management package I posted recently. XnView. It seems to be aimed in the Lightroom direction. Viewing and converting images with some editing facilities. Not a bad simple set actually but raw conversion doesn't seem to have any options at all it just does it. It also has batch conversion though that looks like it will run a script. No help file so far but there is a forum.

John
-

[IzzieK]

With your example there is a point. It is actually a case to case option for me. In your image if this is a woman, you can take advantage of further editing and see where you can actually heal the wrinkles without losing the texture to make his skin smooth-er. Not that it is not advantageous for a man, I am sure he will be flattered but the ego of a woman is more conducive to smoothing out imperfections. Oh! I hope you understand what I mean...it is really hard to explain...

[Colin Southern]

In my opinion ...

- Can it improve the shot? Yes, absolutely.

- Can it produce a professional-quality result (compared to one where correct focus was achieved in the first place)? I've get to see a good example.

And I think your image is a good example of this John; I examined both at 100% and for sure, the one on the left has got focus issues, but the one of the right now has a different set of significant issues.

I think that when folks do things like this, they lose their "baseline reference"; they see the improvement, but they've forgotten what a correctly focused shot looks like in comparison.

Here's an example of your corrected shot alongside a similar crop of a shot that was correctly focused in the first place (be sure to click on to look at at 100% magnification)



So I'm afraid that my opinion hasn't changed; if you're stuck with a situation where you have an OOF shot and it can't be retaken then it's moot because all you can do is do the best you can with what you've got, but on the other hand, if one is planning on using software to compensate for poor technique then their work will always suffer because of it in one way or another.

Given the choice, it's far better to fix the root cause if it's a persistent problem. Would software even produce a shot like the one of my daughter if it was significantly OOF to start with? Not a hope in Hades!

[ajohnw]

I don't think my brother would be too concerned Isabel. It's a quick snapshot taken at a wedding. A good one to try facial retouching on though. Thanks for pointing that out. I've recently been familiarising myself with wavelet decomposing.

My main reason for posting was to show the effect of refocus software which in this case seems to have gone rather well. This suggests that it can be of use even in shots with little size reduction..

The reason for looking at the shot is that on a few occasions the lens used has produced similar slightly out of focus results. Looking more closely, it's a crop from a shot with his wife on the left, the problem is down to me. Shooting angles and slightly inadequate depth of field as a result. The fact that it is a DOF problems is masked by the fact that the stripes in the suit show up on the well lit right side and not so well on the darker left. That side is well in focus.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

My main reason for posting was to show the effect of refocus software which in this case seems to have gone rather well.-

Sorry John, but I think it produced a horrid result; it's improved the "focus", but the trade-off is that it's introduced considerable high-frequency noise and artifacts.

[ajohnw]

Not so sure Colin when it's related to the whole shot where the facial image would be a lot smaller. As shown it's at 100% resolution. As it was the fuzz was still very apparent at 50%. It's a lot better now at 50% but I would agree not perfect.. At 50% the face now looks slightly fogged is perhaps the best way off putting it. The correct size for viewing on a PC screen would be 25% or less. Height wise that's 90% of the height of a 100dpi 27in monitor. That improves things further but I agree again still not perfect. Not sure about that aspect as some how I have mucked up the forehead highlights playing with a package. At 20% which is the sort of reduction that might be used for web posting even the mucked up highlights aren't so apparent and of course no facial touch up would be needed.

I can go back to the original and do it again and have a go at facial touch up. I'll see how it turns out for practice. I do have a couple of portraits that I would like to finish properly but facial retouching is a new thing for me.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

Not so sure Colin when it's related to the whole shot where the facial image would be a lot smaller. As shown it's at 100% resolution. As it was the fuzz was still very apparent at 50%. It's a lot better now at 50% but I would agree not perfect.. At 50% the face now looks slightly fogged is perhaps the best way off putting it. The correct size for viewing on a PC screen would be 25% or less. Height wise that's 90% of the height of a 100dpi 27in monitor. That improves things further but I agree again still not perfect. Not sure about that aspect as some how I have mucked up the forehead highlights playing with a package. At 20% which is the sort of reduction that might be used for web posting even the mucked up highlights aren't so apparent and of course no facial touch up would be needed.

I can go back to the original and do it again and have a go at facial touch up. I'll see how it turns out for practice. I do have a couple of portraits that I would like to finish properly but facial retouching is a new thing for me.

John
-

Again though, I still think it's a moot point because if the shot can't be retaken then it's their best hope, and if it can be retaken then they're always going to get a better result if an image starts with a correctly focused image.

The point I'm really trying to push to anyone following this is "don't use software as a substitute for learning correct focusing technique" - after all, by and large, achieving good focus isn't rocket science -- it usually just takes a few pointers and a bit of practice.

[ajohnw]

My problem on this one Colin was that my brother was more or less at right angles to my sister in law who is to the left and not in the crop. 26mm F5.6 so I am surprised it's out.. If assume 15ft though there is only 1.7ft back towards the camera and circles of confusion of 0.015mm wouldn't be much use at full res anyway. I probably did focus on my sister in law rather than using the edge of by brothers head and widening up somewhat or reframing.. Really F8 would be safer. Just goes to show that there is a need to think a bit even when shooting quick snapshots.

John
-