|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.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.