On 22 Mar 2005, at 09:47, Moose wrote:
> Chris Barker wrote:
>
>> This is what I recommend:
>>
>>
> My work flow is different for a couple of reasons
>
>> - Save your file as a TIF file as the archive copy;
>> - Size your image to 800 pixels on the longest dimension using
>> Bicubic, (or Bicubic Smoother, or Bicubic Sharper with PS CS);
>>
>>
> Since I print some of my pics, and sometimes print others later, I do
> all adjusting at full size and save an adjusted copy in addition to the
> original. Nothing I dislike much more than getting an image just right,
> only to have to try to reproduce the finished product again later. Been
> there, done that, wanted to kick myself. Just printed some Maine images
> for a visiting friend from there whom we stayed with in Oct. Web images
> are in their directory, full size ready to print images in theirs. Just
> load, crop/size to the chosen paper size and print. Quick, efficient
> and
> consistent. Although I have yet to print something like 12x18, when I
> do, I want all the data I can in the file I print.
>
Yes, that is a conundrum: do you save what you have found to work in
the print phase or trust that you will find that mixture again ...?
> I'd been saving in PSD format until somebody posted about future
> viability of that format. I didn't think it was a likely problem with
> the gazillions of images saved in PSD. However, I tried it out, only to
> find that PS is much less efficient at saving TIFF than PSD. Also, I
> sometimes save an extra layer, very rarely more, and saving TIFFs with
> layers is painful. So I'm back to PSD.
>
Sorry, I tend to save in .psd as well; the efficiency is better than
.tif. I was trying to keep my recommendation simple and to the point,
but in so doing omitted an important part of my practice: that I have
"gone off" .tif.
>> - Finish your Curves or Levels adjustment if necessary;
>> - Use a bit of Unsharp Mask if you need to;
>>
>>
> I do my adjustments in 16 bit mode. I don't think it makes much
> difference for modest changes, but multiple adjustments can break up
> the
> histogram. I don't know how to describe the effect other than 'funny'
> or
> 'choppy', but I know I don't like it.
>
Same here. There seems to be much less information lost if you fiddle
around in 16 bit then revert to 8 bit -- even if the file was never in
16 bit.
> I've done and seen tests and I am convinced that stepwise downsizing at
> least sometimes gives better results. It doesn't make a difference for
> many images but makes a noticeable difference with some. Since I don't
> know which will be which, it's easier to just do them all the same way.
> With FM WebPresenter, it just takes moments for it to do the job.
>
I might have a go at that FM gizmo ...
> Sometimes sharpening at full size for printing is sufficient in a
> reduced file, Others still require some sharpening during or after the
> downsampling.
>
> PS/ImageReady Save for Web just didn't do it for me - and it loses the
> EXIF data.
>
And it wastes so much time ...
Chris
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|