> May I ask, When viewing images for clarity etc, on the PC,
> what is a good size to view them at
> to give an indication of the final image, the reason I ask is
> that my more distant portraits (full lenght)
> do not look that sharp.
I'm not sure I fully understand the question, but if it's what I
think you are asking, 50% is a good approximation of what you'll
see in print.
I use a program called "RawShooter Essentials 2006" to convert
the bulk of my RAW images. This program has two "sharpening"
sliders--one is the typical USM, and the other is a pixel-level
sharpening. What I like about it is that I can leave the USM
sharpening neutralized or turned off, but the pixel-level
sharpening does a very good job of countering the AA filter.
However, it also increases noise, so you've got to whack that
with the pattern noise removal...
Anyway, I'm getting less concerned about people pictures being
ultra-sharp. Seems that it really doesn't matter so much.
However, lens-sharpness is another story altogether. A bit of
USM can be used to fix that, but only as long as halos are
avoided.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|