Correct me if I'm wrong, but we shouldnt't think of 'sharpening' as something that can be set to 'zero'. The camera software always does an interpretation of the data it gets from the sensor and this can result in images looking less or more sharp, depending on what the designer intended. This way, 'sharpness' has become a subjective value - in the digital world. At first, I was mighty impressed with the sharpness of the images coming out of my first digital camera (a C**** Ixus) - but now I look at them as being heavily 'oversharpened'.
Sven -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- Von: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Freitag, 23. Januar 2004 21:49 An: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Betreff: Re: Unretouched and unmanipulated Hi, Leon ... I don't see any artifacts, even upon enlarging the image to 300% original size. Can you show me or direct me to something specific? There was no sharpening done on the image - I didn't do any, and the camera was set not to sharpen at all. I really wasn't trying to make a "good test picture," just to grab a quick shot to send to a friend. Your suggestions for making pictures to push the camera are, however, worth remembering. shel Leon Altoff wrote: > I can see artifacts in the transitions from light to dark. This could > be from the jpeging or the sharpening or both. On normal sharpness the > *ist D would not have these on high sharpening it would (your EXIF data > doesn't say what sharpening was used). > > There are no real dark areas on the image for looking at noise - noise > tends to manifest in the dark areas of the image where there is very > little signal. > > The image looks good, but it's not one that is pushing the camera at > all. Good test pictures should push the boundaries of dynamic range > and resolution. > >
