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

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@kennedym.demon.co.uk>]

<x-flowed>In article <3CFFAD2D.6A80C0EF@vinland.com>, Bertho Boman 
<boman@vinland.com> writes
>Very well written Bob Frost!
>
>Another related point that I have not seen brought up is that digital cameras
>have "blur" filters (anti-alias) and as a result  they will produce a slightly
>soften image.
>
>Consumer digital cameras internally sharpen the image before saving it while
>high-end professional ones have options to leave the image unsharpened.  When
>all the editing has been done, the picture needs to be sharpen to get back to
>normal appearance.
>
That is precisely the point I am making Bertho - use sharpening to 
compensate for the losses of the capture process.  Just don't overdo it 
because it does not look natural at all.  The same is true if you are 
trying to highlight an element of the image - once it becomes visible 
then the benefit that you attempt to achieve is lost.

If an unnatural look is what you are after then go ahead and overprocess 
zealously.  The problem area is that middle ground where your image 
looks just off - and you get mistaken for just not being able to get it 
right!

I have dozens of rolls of Ektachrome I have deliberately processed in 
C41 and vice versa in years gone bye to get just the effect I wanted for 
a particular series of images and have spent many hundred of hours 
perfecting solarisation, reticulation and many other  techniques, so I 
have no aversion to special effects or enhancements.  But a print that 
purports to be natural but suffers from oversharpening just looks 
amateurish to me (YMMV) - and it doesn't matter a jot what distance it 
should be viewed from.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.

</x-flowed>