|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
No flak from me, Bob. I agree with you entirely. All the counts is artistic intent and a result that accurately reflects it. Cathy Brown http://catbrownphoto.com -----Original Message----- From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Bob Frost Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2002 5:47 AM To: email@example.com 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. Painters have for a long time known that to enhance edges you lighten the paint on one side of an edge and darken it on the other. I was at an exhibition of paintings by Picasso, Matisse, etc only a few weeks ago - "Paris in the 20's" I think it was called - and I remember saying to my wife "Look at that marvellous example of the use of 'unsharp masking'. Looking at the paintings and prints of paintings in my house, I can see numerous examples of where the artist has emphasized an edge - to make it stand out from the background. And yes, if you peer at the paintings from 10" they look unreal, but stand back and you enjoy the effect the artist was trying to achieve. A friend of mine who goes to art classes has been taught how to enhance edges by painting a darker line round the inside of the edge to make the object stand out - asymmetric sharpening (you can do this with usm on a layer by setting Blend mode to Darken). 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.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users