Dean Tyler wrote:
>Thanks Moose for the detailed comments. I guess I somehow need to scan a
>slide with my Espon 2450 and a higher end film scanner to compare. You are
>correct about getting my head around sharpening. For some reason, it feels
>like over optimizing (cheating!?) to me, but I guess this idea has no basis
>in reality.
>
Well, I'm not all that commited to the idea of reality. But leaving
metaphysics aside, it appears that sharpening is a necessary part of the
process of getting optimal images out of most, if not all, digital
sources. At least that's the case with the current state of the
technology. This is certainly true of digital cameras as well. Consumer
P&S cameras simply sharpen without giving the user any control. Prosumer
digicams and DSLRs give the user various levels of control over internal
sharpening, but they all do at least some sharpening at their default
settings.
Can*n changed their lower end DSLR defaults to higher sharpening,
contrast, saturation, etc. with recent models. I suppose this is both to
give what they expect to those who aren't ever going to get into the
menus and for those who believe (not unreasonably) that their image
should come out of the camera ready to print without further processing
(and also to accomodate their direct camera to printer features.). At
the moment, however, getting the very best results requires taking some
personal control of the processing. Not unlike the level of process
involvement required for wet processing and printing of film images vs.
automated processing and printing.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|