by Keith Reeder » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:28 pm
It's OK, but significantly limited in comparison, Paul - it might be based on deconvolution, but it has a different purpose than the Lr deconvolution option; and is something of a one-trick pony, intended primarily to correct for a lack of sharpness in the lens caused by small apertures.
Crucially, it has an overall effect on the image.
The great thing about Lr deconvolution - used in conjunction with the sharpening mask - is that it is superb at selectively extracting fine detail and texture (from feathers, for example - remember that I'm a bird photographer); and is infinitely variable in terms of the amount of sharpening and detail extraction it can provide; and the targeting of its effect.
I should also point out that I never shoot at diffraction-limited apertures - I'm a natural light photographer, and I use lenses which are very sharp wide open. So the Capture One solution doesn't solve anything for me, whereas I can always benefit from targeted sharpening where I want it.
And by way of further disclosure, it is a long time since I used Capture One as my primary converter (sick of wrestling with its fluorescent colours); and I no longer use LightRoom at all. Image quality is my absolute priority, so Photo Ninja is my go-to converter. It's so good at rendering detail at the demosaicing stage that I often turn sharpening off (note that it has behind-the-scenes edge-aware sharpness masking should I use the sharpening tool), and apply such selective sharpening as I need with Topaz Detail running as a plug-in to my pixel editor of choice.
But the fact still remains that Lr compares very favourably with Capture One in terms of the range and effectiveness of its sharpening capabilities, and I like to see balance in such discussions...