I believe the reporting of Pearce, but......... Something about this
'concept' is really incongruent with the simple reality of established
information transfer science. First, I am somewhat at a loss as to the
meaning of adjusting 'sharpness' in a digital printer and, if so as Dan
asks, WHY???? The (I wanna, but NO, won't dare use a generic K-I-S-S
again so plez no hate mail) ultimate of photography can be defined by
'simple' MTF. If that includes selective artistic addition or
filtering of noise in the form of reduced focus for an individual
print, fine. What I don't understand is why the SOP includes
'reduction of sharpness'. Is this a fuzzy vernacular issue analogous
to confusing explicit and fuzzy use of the word 'contrast'? As for
service to 'Pros', all that I know want precision consistent with the
max film MTF capability. Metering, softening, filtering, etc., is then
rendered unto Caesar behind the viewfinder or mousing in Photoshop.
Synonymous with this topic is the role of film, either print or slide.
Many participants on the List clearly understand that there is no
fundamental difference in the role of information collection between
film and a CCD. To date, the resolution of film is vastly superior to
the best of CCD technology, but only if state-of-the-art digitizing is
utilized to provide equivalent digital data. Whether printed in analog
format directly to prints or via digital means, the science of
information transfer is a common denominator. Both analog and digital
methods allow artistic 'manipulation' of 'sharpness', color balance,
etc to a more or less equivalent extent. I submit that generic
processing of film and prints should be simple, the maintenance of the
MTF at the time of the click or the click of a mouse to save a rendered
file to CDROM.
What have I missed?
Bill
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 04:52 PM, Danrich wrote:
He has reduced the sharpening to a modest level,
Why reduce the sharpness?
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill Pearce
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 10:18 AM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] negative films, minilabs, etc.........
Recently, my pro lab owning friend added a Konica digital printer. He
showed
me the available control, how it was set up by the Konica rep, and what
he
changed to get good results. This was my first upclose experience with
one
of these things, and I now know a lot more about why some prints are so
bad
on these things.
There is a screen full of adjustments that can be made. Some of the
more
interesting ones are for sharpness, saturation, and contrast. Yes,
contrast.
That's why that carefully exposed roll of 160NC came out looking like
Agfa
Ultra 50. The machines are set up by the reps for general minilab film
(not
the brand, but the subjects and exposures), and that's not good for us.
His customers are either pros or advanced amateurs. He has reduced the
sharpening to a modest level, set the saturation to a level that most
closely reproduces what's on the film, and set for normal contrast. The
results for you and me are quite good. The results of a rank amateur
poorly
exposed roll, or something from a disposable, are not so hot.
This gets back to my old song: If you shoot expensive cameras, good
film,
fancy lenses, and take great care with your work, don't expect to get
good
results from a drugstore minilab. They set up their equipment a certain
way
for a reason.
Bill Pearce
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|