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.
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
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
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
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
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 BW as RGB...since
they are using RGB filters, which are typically (more so the red, then the
blue) the cause of smear (crosstalk) and
[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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
