Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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



Initial sharpening is what Bruce Frasier recommends:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189.html

As to the effectiveness of sharpening on the smaller image - you have fewer
pixels to work with, so the same sharpening radius will be much more
visible.

Maris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Durling" <kdurling@earthlink.net>
To: <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: JPG sharpening [was: Color spaces for different
purposes]

[snipped]

OK, I think I'm getting clear here.  So let me rephrase a bit.  When I
scan an image - into whatever file formet, I use TIFF out of Vuescan -
and then open it in PS, I can immediately see some sharpness loss
which I understand to be a result of the scan - scanner limitation,
etc.  One eventual step in my workflow is usually to try to restore
the image to something resembling the original slide, through the use
of as little sharpening or USM as possible.  If I try that on my
original file - before down-sampling - I have to use large USM values
to see any effect at all, or use "sharpen more" (I'm using PS Elements
at the moment).  Once I've resized for the web - typically to 800
pixels in long dimension, which I do using a bicubic resample and
changing the resolution, usually to about 600dpi from 2720 - the file
shrinks from its former +/-20MB to about 1.25MB and sharpening must be
done very cautiously in order to avoid halos and other artifacts.
When I resize for *print* I don't resample, I just change the
dimensions and leave the resolution the same.  It's in the down-sized
scan that I see the change in sharpening response.

So, aside of asking for any observation regarding improving my
workflow - why is the sharpening so much more effective on the smaller
image? And am I losing something I'm not yet aware of?    I'm sure a
much more experienced eye can detect sharpening artifacts in my stuff,
but I've been relatively pleased with the results.  2 examples - feel
free to criticize:

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=716

http://www.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=29447

But I'd like to understand more and get better results.

Thanks for all the explanations!
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


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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.