Sorry but I beg to differ. The discussion on the LUG was between those who say
that sharpening is always necessary, and those who said that if the lens is
good enough (like a modern Leica lens) and the AA filter in front of the sensor
is not there or very thin, than sharpening is not needed. I am in the latter
camp, which will not surprise you, given my minimalist tendencies ;-)
This particular image is not Leica, but it is shot with a very good lens (35mm
Macro Limited) on a Pentax K5, and the cat's eyes are as sharp as can be. The
sharpening you apply does not make them any sharper, it just creates an
illusion of sharpness in areas of the fur that were not in focus in the
original.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
YNWA
On Jun 2, 2011, at 11:35 AM, Moose wrote:
> 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/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|