[filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different purposes]

["Ken Durling" <kdurling@earthlink.net>]

On Sat, 8 Jun 2002 21:36:38 -0500, you wrote:

>True enough, but if the image requires sharpening?  JPG is not a good
>format, I know, but it is very useful and in fact necessary for the web.  I
>would think it better to convert to JPG and then sharpen rather than sharpen
>in TIFF and then convert.  I haven't tested but I think it would result in
>fewer artifacts.


Well there may be other variables in my system, but I get fewer
artifacts sharpening the reduced TIFF rather than the JPEG.   I may
need to experiment with lower USM settings on my JPEGs, but given my
scanner's good somewhat limited capabilities (FS2710) , I'm very happy
with the workflow of TIFF>resize/resample >sharpen>compress.


Ken Durling

Visit my new easier-to-browse PhotoSIG portfolio:
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=203

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body