Jim Nichols wrote:
> Chris,
>
> You are correct, it is over-sharpened to compensate for poor focus or
> movement evident in the original. I probably should have given up on it
> without posting it.
>
If I may be disagreeable without giving offense, I must disagree.
Over processed, without doubt. Mis-sharpened, possibly. Over sharpened,
I don't think so.
Even with a small, over processed image, it's possible to improve
clarity and detail with sharpening.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Nichols/Lily02.htm>
I'm not claiming my alternates are great images, and the second step is
indeed oversharpened. I am claiming that, with proper processing before
down sampling, then proper sharpening at final display size, this image
could look a lot better.
> My ususal work flow is to adjust the RAW image for minor exposure problems,
> then transfer the image to the Elements editor. First, I adjust the
> histogram, adjust lighting and contrast, use color curves if needed, then
> sharpen as needed. I then resize the edited image and save it as a TIFF file.
>
May I suggest that you either move the sharpening to last or sharpen
less at full size, then sharpen again at display size. I discuss why,
with examples, in my article on sharpening.
<http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=3>
> In all honesty, this was a poor image.
In all probability,a large version of your image wil never look sharp.
However, it is often possible to make web size versions of rather
unsharp images look pretty good.
Here's an image Mike posted from his Mexico horse trip. You can see on
the reduced size version that the flowers are unsharp. Focus was on the
wall and DOF insufficient for the closest flowers. I"ve included a full
pixel sample that shows how soft the focus really is. But I really like
the image.
<http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=3>
So starting with the original, 3000x4000 pixel size and working in 16
bit mode, I processed it, including LCE, which often enhances the visual
impression of sharpness. I then down sampled it and experimented with
different sharpening settings. The one I present here involves two
sharpening steps, the second applied only to the flowers by using a mask.
If you flip back and forth, the second image may seem over sharpened.
And that may be the case for your taste. But before coming firmly to
that conclusion, leave the sharpened version up for a while, do some
other things, then look at it by itself, rather in roll-over comparison.
Even if it's still over sharpened for you, consider it an instructive
example of how much detail may appear from a large, soft image in a
smaller form.
I suspect there is a much better small version of your Lily hiding in
the full size original.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|