On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:36:38 -0500, you wrote: >True enough, but if the image requires sharpening? JPG is not a good >format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web. I >would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen >in TIFF and then convert. I haven't tested but I think it would result in >fewer artifacts.
Well there may be other variables in my system, but I get fewer artifacts sharpening the reduced TIFF rather than the JPEG. I may need to experiment with lower USM settings on my JPEGs, but given my scanner's good somewhat limited capabilities (FS2710) , I'm very happy with the workflow of TIFF>resize/resample >sharpen>compress. Ken Durling Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio: http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
