True. But if I'm going to print an image, I'm certainly going to tweak it and apply USM as needed. That would be the case whether I shot it on film or digital. As for optical printing of color, I haven't done that in years, and wouldn't consider it. No lab that I've found can print my images the way I like them. And I tried some of the best. Paul On Apr 14, 2007, at 1:54 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Im not talking about just a reduced size web image with regards to > USM, > Im talking > about creating full size, fully processed, archive type (ready to > print) > images from RAW. And to do that you need to see > the image at full size to set the USM properly because > it varies a lot depending on lens used, fstop, etc. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > David Savage > Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:32 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for > defects(wasRe:Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) > > > Actually USM can be applied without viewing the image at 100%. I know > from experience that a 800x536 @ 72 dpi web image, for example, > requires > USM settings ot 95%, 0.8 pixels, 10 threshold to suit my tastes. 9 > times > out of 10 these settings work perfectly, but I do get the occasional > image that I have to go back and do manually. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > On 4/15/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> UNSHARP MASK alone, which needs the image to be viewed >> at 100% to set properly, cant be done with thumbnails >> so there is no way to group them easily like you suggest unless you >> open every file at full size which is a very time consuming process I >> have grown to hate for an entire card. jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of David Savage >> Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:04 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects >> (wasRe:Fullframelensesandthe K10D, CA anyone?) >> >> >> The trick though, is not trying to batch process a whole card of >> shots > >> automatically (as you've said auto RAW conversion sucks) but to >> review > >> the shots, find groups of similar images and process those groups in >> batches. >> >> Here's and a real world example of how I generally process my shots: >> >> <http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/RAWWF_DS.jpg> >> >> Of the 40 frames, 4 are immediately disregarded due to general >> crapyness or user error. I've identified 6 groups (32 frames) which I >> then process in 6 batches. Leaving 4 shots that are individually >> processed. >> >> So instead of working on 36 pictures, I've in effect only processed >> 10. Taking less than 5 minutes. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Dave > > -- > 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
