Re: Samples from today's shoot with the FA 80-320

[Paul Stenquist]

I much prefer the unsharpened. I agree that the sharpened version looks 
unnatural. How big was the file from which this detail was sliced? Mine 
was 6144 by 4101 and it was from an *istD RAW file, so in effect the 
detail slice was at 200%, since the original had already been 
interpolated.
Paul
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:31 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:

The link:
http://www.dariobonazza.com/paw/5004det.jpg
William Robb wrote:
More to the point, guess the degree of unsharp mask.....
That looks truly unnatural.
Yes and no. Don't forget the make-up, truly making the subject looking
"unnatural" (more than the picture ;-)
OK, so you can choose between no USM (left) and USM (right).
I believe 90-1-0 to be more acceptable for a 90x60cm print like this, 
but if
you prefer the natural way, you could also print the untouched picture 
on
the left.

Dario