Arrogant? you are the one who repeatedly keeps stating things like I dont know what the hell I am talking about JUST because I dont own a Pentax DSLR, and then call my posts pure conjecture even when what I stated is true and I had worked with Pentax DSLR images. You are the arrogant one, not me...Its not arrogance on my part, its just confidence. There is a difference... jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 10:53 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K10D Sharpening All my image sizes are the same. I make 72 megabyte files of every image and 13 inch on the long side, 72 dpi jpegs as well. In other words, a printing image and a web image. I do vary my sharpening techniques in regard to the different requirements of the various images, but I have found that there are general patterns. As you noted, I do resharpen when I create my web sized images.I realize that you have a considerable amount of knowledge that can at times be valuable. But your incredible arrogance and bad manners combine to make anything you say irrelevant. Paul On Nov 24, 2006, at 10:44 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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 -- 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
