Piccure+ Pixel-Level Image Sharpener

[David Stephens]

Is anyone here a long-term or experienced user of Piccure+ image sharpening software. I started a free, 30-day trial yesterday and I'm pretty impressed already. I'm using it as an add-on to DxO Optics Pro. It's can also operate as a stand-alone or plug-in with Lightroom or Photoshop. I've only messed with it on less than a handful of images, but I'm noticing very significant sharpness improvements, without artifacts. On my fast computer, it processes fast.

Here's the very first image that I tried. It was taken in low light, at high ISO and low shutter speed (I'd been shooting perched owls) and at a relatively long distance:

Here's with Picccure+

https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8640/29587682106_00d1ad6487_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/M5yB57)Reprocessed Blackbird On Owl Shot (https://flic.kr/p/M5yB57) by David Stephens (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/), on Flickr

Here's before Piccure+:

https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7309/13962004629_a6b81fa682_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/ngLVxK)Red-winged blackbird harasses Great Horned Owl (https://flic.kr/p/ngLVxK) by David Stephens (https://www.flickr.com/photos/dcstep/), on Flickr

I tried it on a couple of other images, including one that I thought was pretty sharp already and it noticeably improved. I'm using low settings so far and haven't seen any hint of artifacts.

I was wondering if any experienced users had any advice or links to helpful guides, etc. I think that it's well worth spending a little time to mess around with the free trial.

[dankearl]

Umm... If your photo is sharp, it is sharp. What is the point of this software?

[Don Lacy]

David to my eye the after picture is still of poor quality.

[David Stephens]

David to my eye the after picture is still of poor quality.

Nor to my eye also, but the improvement looks huge to me. That's why I showed a before and after.

I'm not trying to promote piccure+, but was looking for others with experience using it. Later this week, I'll show what it does for an image that doesn't need to be rescued.

So, let's talk about an image that shows an interesting behavior, but was shot under poor conditions and is seriously flawed from a technical standpoint, like my example. Don't nature lovers want to see it? Other photographers may gross about its flaws, but nature loving, non -photographers may say something like, "Wow! That's incredible behavior." Is there not value in that?

[David Stephens]

Umm... If your photo is sharp, it is sharp...

Well, not exactly. I think that most of us are now using the Digital Lens Optimization modules in Raw conversion software, such as Digital Photo Professional, Lightroom, DxO, etc. These modules correct for geometric distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. for every included lens/body combination at every aperture/focal-length combination. The problem with these modules is that they rely on camera/lens testing and development of correction tables for all those lens/body/aperture/focal-length combination. Not surprisingly, for example, Canon's DPP only includes current Canon body/lens combinations. Hence, a Canon/Sigma combination is not covered.

The makers of piccure+ claim that it doesn't rely on testing or specific lens/body combinations, instead, piccure+ does a pixel-by-pixel analysis of distortion and calculates the correction required, based on the actual pixel performance, rather a pre-set correction template. This same pixel-by-pixel analysis allows for correction of micro camera shake, cause by too slow shutter speed, mirror jar, etc.

This review uses example requiring much smaller correction than my example:

http://www.michaelfrye.com/2015/07/01/cure-soft-lenses/

I'm curious to see what other users have to say.