Probably the artifacts created in the compression process. It would
probably be better to convert to JPG first and then sharpen.
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Durling" <kdurling@earthlink.net>
To: <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Color spaces for different purposes
On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:17:30 +0100, you wrote:
>Personally I do some sharpening for an archival image that may end up going
>to different outputs. This is only a minor sharpening to restore the
>sharpness of the original which is almost always softened by the scanning
>process. Most images will benefit from further sharpening when targeting
for
>a specific output but this should not really be done for an archival copy.
Speaking of sharpening - I think I understand this in a sort of sloppy
"intuitive" way, but could someone offer a technical explanation of
why sharpening has so much more visible effect on jpegs as opposed to
TIFFs?
Ken Durling
Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
or body
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
