|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I think your point is well taken, and that the same principle can be applied to any photographic technique, whether in taking the photo or in processing it later, and regardless of the method of processing. Some of my more interesting photographs have begun as images I could not get into the gamut of the printer, or that were too blurred to be truly representational, or that were shot with an incorrect white balance, or that printed when one color's nozzles weren't completely clear. All these "mistakes" led me to rethink the image and, in some cases, to begin a whole new series of modified images based on the technique I happened upon either due to limitations of the equipment or happy accidents. - David -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Bob Frost Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 8:47 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Sharpening [was Re: Resolution and print quality] Kennedy (& Harvey), I hesitate to continue this discussion, having been doing serious photography for only a couple of years, and being a scientist rather than an arts person. However, I don't agree that the only sharpening required is that necessary to replace that lost during scanning etc. This might be the case if your photography is of the 'record picture' type - trying to reproduce exactly the scene in front of the lens. But I don't think that is what most 'serious' photographers do. They 'enhance' their images, by every physical, chemical, and electronic trick in the book, to try to produce an unreal picture that satisfies their artistic interpretation of the scene. Enhancement of edges - sharpening - is surely just one of those tricks. [snip] - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.