Re: Sharpening [was Re: Resolution and print quality]

["Konrad Poth" <kpoth@bellsouth.net>]

No flak from me - sounds like a reasonable approach.  Is there a web site
where we may view some of your work?

Konrad Poth
**********************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@btopenworld.com>
To: <epson-inkjet@leben.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 7:47 AM
Subject: Sharpening [was Re: Resolution and print quality]

> With our new computer techniques, sharpening can be done by various means;
> usm is just one of them. But I maintain it is a valid artistic technique
to
> make an object stand out, and that the amount of it that you need depends
on
> the effect you want and on the viewing distance. An artist painting
> miniatures does so with delicate strokes and lines suitable for a close
> viewing; an artist painting murals uses larger brushes and strokes more
> appropriate for viewing at a distance.
>
> The fault that many photographers perhaps have is of applying an equal
> amount of sharpening to the whole image. Painters don't seem to do that;
> they are more selective in what they sharpen and by how much. I have
> recently started being much more selective; one recent image that needed
> different amounts of sharpening in different areas was sharpened four
times
> with 100% amount of usm. Then, using the History brush, I simply painted
the
> appropriate amount of sharpening into the different areas of the image.
>
> But all done for a viewing distance of 10 feet or more, which is what
> happens if I show my prints to a seated audience. Forget the fine detail
if
> people are sitting 20 feet away; it's the overall composition and impact
> that counts. IMO.
>
> Bob Frost (awaiting the flak)

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.