Interesting. I guess the need for explanation belongs to Phil Askey.
Wonder why he couldn't do normal sharpening?
Chuck Norcutt
AG Schnozz wrote:
> Chuck wrote:
>
>>I followed all of this except "But the softness of the
>>processing
>>appears to be quite linear and easily addressable with a
>>fine-tuned USM"
>>I haven't gone back and re-read the review comments nor have I
>>attempted
>>to sharpen one of the sample files but it seem to me what
>>you've said
>>there is a direct contradiction of the review. Explanation?
>
>
> I downloaded several of the sample images and loaded them up in
> photoshop and applied USM to the images. I was able to apply an
> extremely aggressive sharpening to the images without fear. If
> I tried even half the sharpening to either the E-1 or A1 files I
> would have had artifacts and blobbies left and right. The image
> of the bridge, inparticular, took HUGE amounts of sharpening.
>
> I don't understand where others are finding fault with the
> Pentax files as I see them as highly usable and as good as
> anything I've ever tested. They are really good.
>
> AG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|