I recall, as someone mentioned, that Ian Lyons had pointed up the usefulness
of USM, or perhaps sharpening in general, in Silverfast, even that it is
superior to PS, I think. There is an "Auto Sharpen" filter and the USM
filter has many parameters, even seemingly beyond those in PS.
My problem is that the preview doesn't seem quite accurate, at least not to
what one eventually sees in PS. It does certainly seem to show the view in
actual pixels, but it looks as though it has sharpened a bit more than
anticipated once the image is viewed in PS.
>I think you would be doing the right thing by not using USM in SilverFast.
>As I mentioned before, I think it was intended for users who would be doing
>no further processing with Photoshop or other graphics software and were
>going directly to press with the scanned image. By using unsharp masking
>SilverFast, and more USM in Photoshop, you are asking for trouble since
>"double sharpening" like that can get out of hand very quickly. And the
>amount of sharpening needed depends on your final image size as well. That
>might explain why the image in the SilverFast preview looks different than
>Photoshop. When sharpening an image, you should view the image on your
>monitor at "actual pixel" size. As I recall, the double sharpening method
>advocated by Bruce Fraser uses some edge sharpening, so I doubt you could
>accomplish the same thing by starting with USM in SilverFast.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp