On Sun, 9 Jun 2002 10:52:22 -0230, you wrote: >> There seems to be a widespread misconception here. While >> you are editing an image, it _does not have_ a format; >> it isn't JPEG, or TIFF, or anything else. >> The image is stored on a file in JPEG or TIFF or whatever >> format you choose, but it has no format during editing, >> and so whether you edit a file opened from TIFF or JPEG makes >> absolutely no difference while you are editing. An image in an >> editing program is just a mass of pixels. > > I believe the "misconception" of always sharpening before JPEG comes from >the common down-sampling. That is, most images start out big before being >down-sized for wwweb presentation ... and the usual advice is: ... down-size >... sharpen (to remove the softening side-effects of down-sampling) ... and >save as JPEG.
\ OK, I think I'm getting clear here. So let me rephrase a bit. When I scan an image - into whatever file formet, I use TIFF out of Vuescan - and then open it in PS, I can immediately see some sharpness loss which I understand to be a result of the scan - scanner limitation, etc. One eventual step in my workflow is usually to try to restore the image to something resembling the original slide, through the use of as little sharpening or USM as possible. If I try that on my original file - before down-sampling - I have to use large USM values to see any effect at all, or use "sharpen more" (I'm using PS Elements at the moment). Once I've resized for the web - typically to 800 pixels in long dimension, which I do using a bicubic resample and changing the resolution, usually to about 600dpi from 2720 - the file shrinks from its former +/-20MB to about 1.25MB and sharpening must be done very cautiously in order to avoid halos and other artifacts. When I resize for *print* I don't resample, I just change the dimensions and leave the resolution the same. It's in the down-sized scan that I see the change in sharpening response. So, aside of asking for any observation regarding improving my workflow - why is the sharpening so much more effective on the smaller image? And am I losing something I'm not yet aware of? I'm sure a much more experienced eye can detect sharpening artifacts in my stuff, but I've been relatively pleased with the results. 2 examples - feel free to criticize: http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=716 http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=29447 But I'd like to understand more and get better results. Thanks for all the explanations! 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