I just received two copies of this email I posted, and am wondering if
others received more than one. I checked my 'sent mail' and it shows it
having only gone out once. I'm wondering if it is my mail server, or
something happening elsewhere.
I don't need everyone to reply, so if a few people
I have my scanner currently set to not do any software sharpening at
all. It is adjustable within its software driver. I prefer having
control over it in Photoshop, which appears to be more sophisticated.
The same with my little digital camera. I have it saving the images
(which are jpegged)
Well, if you insist then the answer is no.
But I could have, if you allowed me to ;-) to make an argument
otherwise. In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD
sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image. However, you're the
ones with the images, you know the application, and
Honestly, Ed, I would make up a few examples both unsharpened and
sharpened to different degrees and ask someone who you trust for an
opinion. I almost always use *some* USM even on softer edged subjects
because it changes the contrast ratios a bit, and defines some edges
where appropriate. But
Well, I did answer it ;-)
And basically, I said the same thing, just in a LOT more words... now
THAT's a slight reversal of roles ;-)
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
I am not sure that that is an answerable question without actually seeing
the various images.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I
From: Arthur Entlich
I just received two copies of this email I posted, and am wondering if
others received more than one. I checked my 'sent mail' and it shows it
having only gone out once. I'm wondering if it is my mail server, or
something happening elsewhere.
I don't need everyone
In general (I'm assuming these were captured with a CCD
sensor) some unsharp masking benefits the image.
Seems to be true for color, and for scanners that scan BW as RGB...since
they are using RGB filters, which are typically (more so the red, then the
blue) the cause of smear (crosstalk) and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone tried sharpening the channels individually for a color image?
Since I don't do much color, I never thought of that before...but it seems
like it might be advantageous, as you wouldn't lose as much detail in the
sharper channels... Any thoughts on this?
Yes you did Art. the role reversal was refreashing. Apparently the posts
pasted each other like ships in the night. I may have written my response
the same time as you wrote yours; but for some reason mine took longer to
get on the list. By the way, I received this post the same time as I
Art,
While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did
not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a
misunderstanding.
A common trick of the trade is to convert the image to LAB, and then
only sharpen the monochromic image, leaving the
Ëd, I can appreciate your requesting a third fresh opinion and am not
chastising you for doing so. My response is based on the fact that clouds,
as you suggest, typically are without sharp edges (blurry and fuzzy); but
there are some types of clouds and some types of lighting conditions which
Paul,
I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such
use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one
wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an
uncontrolled enhancement of all local contrasts in the image as
Yeap, you're right. My terminology was sloppy. Thanks for the correction.
Art
Laurie Solomon wrote:
Art,
While I am not refuting you, I wish to elaborate on one detail that you did
not make real clear in your response so that others will not go away with a
misunderstanding.
A common
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus that
because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners (and I might
add digital cameras), it is beneficial to apply slight sharpening to an
image prior to doing any editing of the image, additional sharpening at the
end
I'm a bit perplexed at what the dpi means on a film scanner. Trying to
compare apples to apples, will a 4000 dpi Brand X film scanner in theory
produce a better quality image outputted than a 2000 dpi Brand X scanner,
given that the output resolution is the same, say 1600 x 2400 pixels?
Or does
Laurie Solomon said the following on 3/25/2004 11:29 AM:
Paul,
I did not realize that it could be used that way. I would think that such
use would be really limited and dependent on the subject matter and what one
wanted to do with it. While it might enhance localized contrasts, it is an
Better is a relative term. Generally higher dpi (technically it should be
spi or samples per inch and not either dpi, dots per inch, or ppi, pixels
per inch) will produce a higher resolution and sharper image than lower
amounts of samples per inch. One has to be careful in making comparisons
Bob,
That has been refined and is now being sold as a commercial application by
Pixel Genius called Photokit Sharpener.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There is a current wisdom among many including some industry gurus
that because of the points you make regarding captures by scanners
(and I might
That technique of individual channel sharpening is in an edition of the
Dan Margulis Professional Photoshop book. He advocates sharpening the
weakest color channel in certain situations such as facial portraits.
It's a very interesting discussion and he gives examples.
One-channel sharpening can
The use of edge sharpening is also sold as an action called Ultrasharpen
at www.ultrasharpen.com . Previous versions used the find edges though
the latest one uses glowing edges and two levels of simultaneous
sharpening...or something like that.
Stan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
Most color film scanners use a CCD chip which has a series of three
lines across it each with a color filter over it, Red, Green or Blue,
which each are made up of a series of sensors. (Nikon uses a slightly
different method, but I don't want to confuse things).
That line contains a specific
Art,
That line contains a specific number of sensors across it. For
simplicity, let's assume a film frame is one inch across by 1.5 wide.
That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or pixels
per inch) resolution, the image dimensions when a file was created would
be 6000
Art,
I really am not trying to pick on you (ok, yes I am); scanners techically
measure resolution in terms of samples per inch or spi. Thus, Your
correction below is wrong.
That would mean if the scanner claimed a 4000 dpi (really ppi or
pixels per inch) resolution
It is really 4000 spi and
23 matches
Mail list logo
