[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hello, > > I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain > type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various > cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or > dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to > this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life > much easier!) > > Ed Verkaik > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
> From: Ed Verkaik > > I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of > image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various > cloud forms and > skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you > think there is > any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? > (Please say > no - it would make life much easier!) No. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing the various images. >> Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural "edges" that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
> From: Ed Verkaik > > Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and > blue sections, > or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy > sky). Surely > there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I > always assumed > that since clouds have no natural "edges" that sharpening is not > relevant and > maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does > not detect fine > changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would > try to come up > with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, > either through > an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience > of others can > lead me to a solution. Actually, I should make one further point, which is that Unsharp Mask can also be used as a localized contrast enhancement, by setting its diameter to something near its maximum value, rather than to the usual very small value. This is particularly useful when you want to enhance local contrast (perhaps even in clouds), but you have too much overall dynamic range to use a more conventional Levels or Curves approach. If all you have is clouds, though, Levels or Curves should work fine. But that use of Unsharp Mask isn't really sharpening. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Well, if you insist then the answer is no. But I could have, if you allowed me to ;-) to make an argument otherwise. In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image. However, you're the ones with the images, you know the application, and you can best test the results to see if the benefits justify the time and energy. Art Ed Verkaik wrote: > Hello, > > I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain type of > image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various cloud forms and > skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or dark. Do you think there is > any merit to doing any sharpening to this kind of subject matter? (Please say > no - it would make life much easier!) > > Ed Verkaik > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Honestly, Ed, I would make up a few examples both unsharpened and sharpened to different degrees and ask someone who you trust for an opinion. I almost always use *some* USM even on softer edged subjects because it changes the contrast ratios a bit, and defines some edges where appropriate. But it is somewhat subjective. Even with skies, I find USM makes them slightly more dramatic. What size are you going to be printing at? One thing I almost always do is if I know I will be heavily jpegging an image, I pre-USM oversharpen. This is based upon my personal taste and experience, not any specific theory. I just find jpegging softens edges, and the image looks better after jpegging if the image has been oversharped slightly beforehand. I find doing it after jpegging tends to over emphasize jpeg artifacts. It may be, however, that the image file ends up larger doing what I suggest. Art Ed Verkaik wrote: > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing > the various images. > > > Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue sections, > or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas (stormy sky). Surely > there are generalizations we could apply to such subjects? I always assumed > that since clouds have no natural "edges" that sharpening is not relevant and > maybe even detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine > changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up > with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, either through > an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the experience of others can > lead me to a solution. > > Ed Verkaik > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Well, I did answer it ;-) And basically, I said the same thing, just in a LOT more words... now THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-) Art Laurie Solomon wrote: > I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing > the various images. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Hello, >> >>I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain >>type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various >>cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or >>dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to >>this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life >>much easier!) >> >>Ed Verkaik >> > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
> In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD > sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image. Seems to be true for color, and for scanners that scan B&W as RGB...since they are using RGB filters, which are typically (more so the red, then the blue) the cause of smear (crosstalk) and bloom (saturation)...which fuzzes the image data...which is one of the reasons to sharpen. For the Leafscan (or any scanner capable of this, but I don't know any other) in monochrome mode (meaning, it scans using a single neutral density filter, instead of using any RGB filters), I haven't had any need to sharpen. So, it's not just that it's a CCD sensor, but a CCD sensor with color filters that exacerbate smear and bloom. I've also found that the green channel needs little to no sharpening if used as the predominant values for grayscale conversion. Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? > Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems > like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the > sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? > > Regards, > > Austin > A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic principal that was used with "s-video" and super 8mm video. hey increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when "pushed". Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Yes you did Art. the role reversal was refreashing. Apparently the posts pasted each other like ships in the night. I may have written my response the same time as you wrote yours; but for some reason mine took longer to get on the list. By the way, I received this post the same time as I received the one in which you responded to the original post ( e.g., on 3/25/04). If I had read your response before writing mine, I wouldn't have responded sinc yours is much more complete. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Well, I did answer it ;-) > > And basically, I said the same thing, just in a LOT more words... now > THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-) > > Art > > Laurie Solomon wrote: > >> I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually >> seeing the various images. >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am seeking an opinion about the purpose for sharpening a certain >>> type of image. I have a large batch of unsharpened scans of various >>> cloud forms and skies. In most cases ground detail is minimal or >>> dark. Do you think there is any merit to doing any sharpening to >>> this kind of subject matter? (Please say no - it would make life >>> much easier!) >>> >>> Ed Verkaik >>> >> > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Art, While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a misunderstanding. > A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then > only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. This might more accurrately be states as "...then only sharpen the L or Luminescence channel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >> >> Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color >> image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that >> before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't >> lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? >> >> Regards, >> >> Austin >> > > > A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then > only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since > the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we > have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is > reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic > principal that was used with "s-video" and super 8mm video. hey > increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the > color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when "pushed". > > Art > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Ëd, I can appreciate your requesting a third fresh opinion and am not chastising you for doing so. My response is based on the fact that clouds, as you suggest, typically are without sharp edges (blurry and fuzzy); but there are some types of clouds and some types of lighting conditions which result in clouds with sharp edges and gradations of corlor or light to dark areas. Given the limitations of scanner and camera design, the scanner or camera will contribute to some decreases in apparent sharpness in general. Those images with soft fuzzy and blurry edges and tonal gradations due to the nature of the clouds themselves or the lighting conditions may not be negatively effected by being left without any sharpening, while those with sharp edges andtonal gradations due to the nature of the clouds and lighting conditions might benefit from sharpening to counter the softening effect fo the scanner and /or camera. Having said that, I do not see how a very mild degree of overall sharpening would be harmful in the former case; but it is unnecessary I would think. Unfortunately there is no typical sky to imagine; there are typical stormy skys, clear skys, hazy skys, skys at sunset, skys at sunrise, etc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually > seeing the various images. >>> > > Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and blue > sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark areas > (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply to > such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no natural > "edges" that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even detrimental. > Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine changes in > contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try to come up > with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all images, > either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm hoping the > experience of others can lead me to a solution. > > Ed Verkaik > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
Paul, I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as contrasted to localized in the sense that one selects the different elements and selections in the image that oe would want enhanced, leaving the unselected alone. In that sense, it is almost like using the contrast adjustment in Photoshop. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> From: Ed Verkaik >> >> Just imagine a typical sky -- either one with cloud elements and >> blue sections, or cloudy with varyiong degree of light and dark >> areas (stormy sky). Surely there are generalizations we could apply >> to such subjects? I always assumed that since clouds have no >> natural "edges" that sharpening is not relevant and maybe even >> detrimental. Unfortunately, my limited vision does not detect fine >> changes in contrast or sharpness. In a perfect world, I would try >> to come up with a single (mild) degree of sharpening to apply to all >> images, either through an action or with dedicated software. I'm >> hoping the experience of others can lead me to a solution. > > Actually, I should make one further point, which is that Unsharp Mask > can also be used as a localized contrast enhancement, by setting its > diameter to something near its maximum value, rather than to the > usual very small value. This is particularly useful when you want to > enhance local contrast (perhaps even in clouds), but you have too > much overall dynamic range to use a more conventional Levels or > Curves approach. If all you have is clouds, though, Levels or Curves > should work fine. > > But that use of Unsharp Mask isn't really sharpening. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Yeap, you're right. My terminology was sloppy. Thanks for the correction. Art Laurie Solomon wrote: > Art, > > While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did > not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a > misunderstanding. > >>A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then >>only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. > > > This might more accurrately be states as "...then only sharpen the L or > Luminescence channel" > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>>Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color >>>image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that >>>before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't >>>lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? >>> >>>Regards, >>> >>>Austin >>> >> >> >>A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then >>only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the color alone. Since >>the human eye responds much more to brightness levels than color (we >>have a lot more rods than cones) that can sometimes be effective is >>reducing color artifacting that USM can create. It's the same basic >>principal that was used with "s-video" and super 8mm video. hey >>increased the frequency on the luma signal, pretty much leaving the >>color signal alone since it is much more prone to noise when "pushed". >> >>Art >> >>-- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Laurie Solomon said the following on 3/25/2004 11:29 AM: > Paul, > > I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such > use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one > wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an > uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as contrasted > to localized in the sense that one selects the different elements and > selections in the image that oe would want enhanced, leaving the unselected > alone. In that sense, it is almost like using the contrast adjustment in > Photoshop. ... It actually works pretty well. Try a radius of about 65 or so, amount of 30 and threshold of 1. Paint Shop Pro has a built in function they call "clarify" that appears to do just about the same thing. The visual effect is more subtle than the contrast adjustment. Almost like cleaning your lens. Try it. You may like it. -- Clive http://clive.moss.net Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
That technique of individual channel sharpening is in an edition of the Dan Margulis Professional Photoshop book. He advocates sharpening the weakest color channel in certain situations such as facial portraits. It's a very interesting discussion and he gives examples. One-channel sharpening can help avoid introducing sharpening artifacts into blue sky areas. Stan -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 6:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image? Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the sharper channels... Any thoughts on this? Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-) My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for sky/clouds, but that a small amount may be beneficial to offset scan-induced softening and/or to help minimize the effects of downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down to ~1mb TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as "webmasters" to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from the large TIFFs (yet) but use them for stock, while all jpegs are for web or previewing. With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or contrast enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it once, at one point in the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone but do something to make enhanced jpegs... or should this enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs? Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding PS) offers the best results in the most simple, automated way? Thanks! Ed Verkaik Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: another Sharpening question
At 12:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-) > >My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for sky/clouds, but >that a >small amount may be beneficial to offset scan-induced softening and/or to help >minimize the effects of downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs >down >to ~1mb TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as >"webmasters" >to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from the large TIFFs >(yet) but >use them for stock, while all jpegs are for web or previewing. > >With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or contrast >enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it once, at one >point in >the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone but do something to make enhanced >jpegs... or should this enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs? > >Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding PS) offers >the best results in the most simple, automated way? > >Thanks! >Ed Verkaik Well, given your "once" constraint the simple answer is . . . "USM treatment should be the last thing you do before you save your otherwise-completely-edited" file to whatever format (presumably JPEG for online display) you use. As for the best one-step USM process: Fred Miranda's IS action for PS is the "best easy" (i.e., one-step) USM utility that I'm aware of. And it's reasonably priced. And if you decide to buy it, please use my site's link to get it, as then I'll receive a modest kickback from Fred. (All of this money goes directly back into the maintenance of my site.) You could find that link here: http://tristanjohn.com/inkstwo.htm My first page was devoted to a simple comparison test of the FM IS action versus the one-shot USM utility offered by Picture Window Pro. I'm not trying to pick on the latter, but it will give you a good idea of the difference between USM utilities (the majority) which use a shotgun approach as opposed to USM techniques which look rather only (or at least primarily) to the _edges_ of the target image. You can find that comparison here: http://tristanjohn.com/USMtest.htm Happy sharpening! Tris Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: another Sharpening question
There is no single one size fits all sharpening software; but there are several very good, flexible applications out there which vary in complexity and cost. You can go to www.pixelgenius.com and take a look at Photokit Sharpener, a sharpening program that will work with both 16 bit and 8 bit workflows developed by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Swebe, et al. This program devided sharpening up into three stages: Capture, Editing, and Output with each stage allowing for a variety of sharpening technigues to choose from. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > At 12:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, you wrote: >> Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-) >> >> My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for >> sky/clouds, but that a small amount may be beneficial to offset >> scan-induced softening and/or to help minimize the effects of >> downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down to ~1mb >> TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as >> "webmasters" to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from >> the large TIFFs (yet) but use them for stock, while all jpegs are >> for web or previewing. >> >> With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or >> contrast enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it >> once, at one point in the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone >> but do something to make enhanced jpegs... or should this >> enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs? >> >> Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding >> PS) offers the best results in the most simple, automated way? >> >> Thanks! >> Ed Verkaik > > > Well, given your "once" constraint the simple answer is . . . "USM > treatment should be the last thing you do before you save your > otherwise-completely-edited" file to whatever format (presumably JPEG > for online display) you use. > > As for the best one-step USM process: Fred Miranda's IS action for PS > is the "best easy" (i.e., one-step) USM utility that I'm aware of. > And it's reasonably priced. And if you decide to buy it, please use > my site's link to get it, as then I'll receive a modest kickback from > Fred. (All of this money goes directly back into the maintenance of > my site.) You could find that link here: > http://tristanjohn.com/inkstwo.htm > > My first page was devoted to a simple comparison test of the FM IS > action versus the one-shot USM utility offered by Picture Window Pro. > I'm not trying to pick on the latter, but it will give you a good > idea of the difference between USM utilities (the majority) which use > a shotgun approach as opposed to USM techniques which look rather > only (or at least primarily) to the _edges_ of the target image. > > You can find that comparison here: http://tristanjohn.com/USMtest.htm > > Happy sharpening! > > Tris > > -- -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) > in the message title or body > > > > --- > Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
