Paul Stenquist wrote: > I much prefer the unsharpened. I agree that the sharpened version looks > unnatural.
OK, no problem. I had to catch attention with a sharp image, and some extra USM was helpful :-) > How big was the file from which this detail was sliced? "Around" 6 Megapixel resolution, more than 2 MB size. > 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. "Mine" is not interpolated. It's just cut out of the straight file. Dario
