I never found labs that could do BW the way I wanted it, but I got lots of great color printing done by labs because there isnt much, if any, tweeking with color film printing other than color balance and most labs could usually do that fine, even minilabs. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:24 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peeping and looking for defects(wasRe:FullframelensesandtheK10D, CA anyone?) 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
