On 6/2/2011 1:23 AM, Nathan Wajsman wrote:
> Another picture from Sunday on Tabarca. The island has no cars, so it is an
> ideal place for cats. Everybody feeds them, and when you eat in the local
> restaurants (outdoors), invariably they come to your table, hoping for
> "accidental" food drops:
>
> http://www.greatpix.eu/All/Picture-A-Day/4253606_netUM#1318280876_LMTHB3F-O-LB
>
> This picture is also my contribution to the debate on the LUG about
> sharpening. I believe it is certainly sharp enough; I shot RAW and applied no
> sharpening in Lightroom.
I'm not privy to that exchange, but think you may misunderstand the issue. It
may not be about sharpening at full size,
but about sharpening after down sampling for display.
I submit that, whether this image is sharp enough for any given taste, it is
not as sharp as it can be. Another way to
say that is that there is detail in the image that is either soft or invisible
in the image as presented.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Wajsman/pad110423.htm>
I wrote at some length on zone-10.com, trying to clarify in simple, practical,
easily visualized terms why sharpening is
always necessary after ANY digital sampling, including scanning and resampling
to a smaller size, if maximum detail
visibility is desired. The relevant part starts here and goes on for two more
pages.
<http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1>
It is also true that greater detail/sharpness may be brought out in RAW images
at full size, as the same principles
apply. But I find it generally doesn't matter for images destined for down
sampling for web display.
A. Sharper Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|