Generally, I'll keep anything that I like even if it's a wee bit soft or noisy. I'll even keep some shots that are very noisy, if I like the effect (which is not unlike grain).
However, for critical work, such as a magazine car shoot, I'll look at the focal point at 100%. For example, if I'm focusing on a front license plate, and I take two sets of bracketed shots for one setup. I'll look at that license plate on the two best exposures at 100% and choose the one that appears to be sharpest. i've found that there might be some variation, particularly with very long glass, even when shooting off a tripod with the mirror locked up. At 100% with a 144 megabyte 16 bit image, it's easy to determine sharpness. > Thanks Paul, > But what I'm asking is independent of any sharpening process. I'm seeking the > magnification @ which you view the image and make a keep/discard > determination. > > Kenneth Waller > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: OT: digital image editing > > My experience supports what Rob has said. Most of my prints are 11 x 17 at > 360 > dpi from converted *istD RAW files. I find that the optimum sharpening > numbers > for printing vary only a bit. I sometimes fuss over sharpening at 100% or > 200% > but find I end up at almost exactly the same place every time. How MUCH > sharpening one applies is partly a matter of personal taste. For a well > exposed > file shot at 200 ISO, my optimum numbers of unsharp mask (assuming no > sharpening > during conversion) are 260% at 1 pixel with a threshold of 11. > Paul > > > > Rob, > > ok, but at what magnification do you make the sharp/keep or not > > sharp/discard/fix determination. > > Inquiring mind wants to know. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: RE: OT: digital image editing > > > > On 4 Aug 2005 at 17:18, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > > > It's not just for digital shooters. many Photoshop experts suggest > > > sharpening the final image @ 100% or 200% of the final print size to > > > better > > > determine the actual sharpness of the final result and to get a closer > > > approximation of what the final print will look like. If one is making a > > 10x14 > > > print, it makes no sense to sharpen based on a small, screen-sized image, > just > > > as when sharpening an image for the web it makes no sense to sharpen a > > > 40MB > > TIF > > > file. > > > > I don't really subscribe to the sharpen per image theory. I have found that > > when printing files of a similar resolution and quality to a specific > > printer > > it's generally easy to experimentally determine the optimum sharpening > > factors > > for various print sizes. Once the factors have been determined it's easy to > > apply optimum sharpening blind. > > > > Variation in sharpening factors are generally only called for due to file > > resolution changes relating to cropping or image stitching and again tests > > can > > be made for several variations to determine optimum sharpening factors for > > the > > irregular conditions. It's really not rocket science and I'd bet few people > > have the ability to truly interpret how an image will be rendered in print > > based on a screen view at 100% or any other factor. > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > PeoplePC Online > > A better way to Internet > > http://www.peoplepc.com > > > > > > ________________________________________ > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com >
