More sure? Either you're sure or you arent. I dont need a PENTAX DSLR to know what years of PS digital image processing have shown to be true with both scanned film and digital originals. You need to be comparing images of the same image size and two different makes and models of cameras were mentioned, not two Pentax DSLRs and the image sizes being compared were not stated. I didnt state it, but the bigger the image size in general, the higher your unsharp mask settings need to be for the same visual results and if you resize smaller you generally will need to resharpen again ( but with lower settings than previously used for the larger original image ). I have found this to be true with every digital image I have ever worked with, even those I DOWNLOADED off the web from PENTAX DSLRS and other makes too.... You really need to stop assuming that if one doesnt own a Pentax DSLR, they cant know what the hell they are talking about, even general digital stuff like unsharp mask behavior.... jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K10D Sharpening We're more sure than those who've never shot digital with a Pentax camera. Paul On Nov 24, 2006, at 9:35 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > The PS optimum unsharp mask settings will vary on > a lot of factors, most notably the image > size in pixel dimensions. Are you sure you are > all comparing apples with apples? > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 9:00 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: K10D Sharpening > > > I've used well over 100% many times. With the *istD photos, I > generally used 261% at 1.5 pixels and a threshold of 11. With the > K10D I'm still experimenting, but I seem to be coming in at about > 100%, 1.2 pixels and a threshold of 19. It's all a matter of > subjective taste. But I do look for artifacts and dial back if I see > anything unhappy. > Paul > On Nov 24, 2006, at 7:48 PM, David J Brooks wrote: > >> Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >>> David J Brooks wrote: >>> >>>> I found my Nikon files needed 70-100% my istD files sometimes >>>> close to >>> 200% >>> >>> 200% at what radius and threshold settings? >>> I don't think I've ever used over 100% on anything from any camera! >> >> My settinghs for Nikon are,%70-100, 0.3 and 0 threshold. If i use >> those my istD shots print very soft. Espesially with the 16-45, less >> with the 50-200 which seems sharper from the camera. If that makes >> sense. >>> >>>> Is this the case. It is/was my biggest complaint for the istD >>> >>> And why would it be a complaint? Using 200% takes the same effort in >>> Photoshop as using 10%! As long as the end result looks good it >>> doesn't >>> seem significant to me. >> >> I just seem to have softer shots from the istD. But, the 16-45 >> ~seems~ a problem, however saying that using the Nikon settings >> above, > >> 200% compared to 70-100% sems the differnce. >> >> Dave >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> >> Equine Photography in York Region >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
