Two different sharpening technique. Which one is better?

[cocasana]

This rather uninteresting shots works well for the purpose.
I've sharpened the first one using my normal workflow. The second one has been sharpened using a rather different one. The result is rather similar to my eyes. I would be interested in your opinion. Are they good? which one is better? Thanks, Carlo

This is the old workflow

[cocasana]

This is the new one

[Nikolai]

It's damn hard to play this kind of games at those web resolutions.

Do you think you can post 3-4 100% crops side by side?
Like: skies; poles/wires; nearest bushes; pavement.

[LiquidAir]

The second one doesn't have as much contrast in the mid-tones. For this shot, I think I perfer the the old workflow because it does a better job of separating the bushes from the wall behind them.

Personally, I have 3 or 4 different sharpening strategies depending on what the photo needs. I don't think there is one universally best way to sharpen.

[pathfinder]

I agree with Nick that it is hard to discern a great deal of difference viewed on the WEB, but I think LiquidAir is also correct about the decrease in contrast in the mid tones in the second version..

[cocasana]

Thanks dear dgrin friends for stopping and commenting.
I can't but agree with you on every point. When I wrote that I thought that this shot worked well for a sharpening test, I didn' write it but I intended a midium-high frequency image, as Bruce Fraser would have called it.
Both shots were "Multipass" sarpened on three different layers. In the "Old" one the first layer was set on Darken blending mode and had a USM treatment. The other two were set on Luminosity and were treated with Smart Sharpen. In the "New" one all three layers were set on Luminosity blending mode (66%) with a "Blend if" selection for midtones. All three had a Smart Sharpen treatment.
The beneath image is a 400% enlargement of a detail. The left (for the viewer) comes from the "New" one. The right one from the "Old" one.
Later I'll upload a new enlarge detail comparison image

[Nikolai]

I'd say 400% is an overkill, but since there is no 100%...

Both have the same problems (lots of floating false edges on both poles and wires), but I like details on the right one more.

HTH

[cocasana]

I'd say 400% is an overkill, but since there is no 100%...

Both have the same problems (lots of floating false edges on both poles and wires), but I like details on the right one more.

HTH
Nikolai,
I'm sorry I was late uploading the 100% image. I'll do it in a few minutes.
This is a 100% crop of the original shot right out of ACR. If I'm looking at right things more then false edges they look to my eyes like details.

[cocasana]

New one on viewer's left. Old one on viewer's right.

[Nikolai]

New one on viewer's left. Old one on viewer's right.

It's still very hard to see...
Anyway...
I like the bush details on the left and everything else on the right.

HTH

[Khaos]

The 2nd has a lot more white being used in the contrast for sharpening. Look at the lower right corner at the branches and leaves. The old workflow doesn't use the white as much.

That being said, I would prefer the 2nd one if you toned it down a little. It's sharper but a tad too much.