On 4/14/2018 6:48 PM, Victim of De Fault Mike wrote:
Nathan writes:
<<All the technical gibberish that was discussed in this
<<thread goes over my head, and I do not let Smugmug apply any sharpening when I
<<upload.
<<It is not free, but you most certainly get what you pay for in this case.
I guess I'm guilty of contributing to the technical gibberish. It seems one
doesn't get quite as much for what ones pays for in some ways than
before. The ability to change the downsize sharpening in Smugmug galleries
has been removed!---harummph, bah humbug, grrrrrr.
Smugmug doesn't touch the original image as far as sharpening, and does still
use the Lanczos algorithm with a default amount of 0.20 as before--confirmed by
Smugmug. I usually just upload a very large jpeg as the downsized images for
display were fine and the downsizing sharpening was adjustable anyway.
As Moose has explained in detail ( A Moose Monday article?), all downsized
images require some sharpening.
[True, but only a part of the more general truth that "all digitally sampled images
require some sharpening"]
Indeed! I was rather pleased with that one.
<http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1>
Rereading it, it's interesting how well the basic point and thought experiments have held up. The image examples are
quite elderly, as the digital world has moved forward, but I still think make their point. If I were to write it now,
the examples would be larger and clearer.
The big change since then is the introduction of generalized deconvolution apps. I'm working on a thought experiment to
explain that. :-)
And I did get a little cutesy a couple of times . . .
Assuming the other parameter defaults are unchanged the radius would be 1,
threshold 0.05 with a sigma of 1.0. (Sigma in this context is the relative
weight of pixels as a f(distance from the convolution kernal)
All these were adjustable for each image if one wanted before! Portraits were
best with tad lighter touch and some macros a bit more aggressive. People spend
much time, dosh and effort on their gear and images and how it is finally
displayed should be the photog's choice not some durn default. It does work
fine for most images most of the time, but that is besides the point for a
service like that, IMO. They could have just let it be and those that did not
want to fuss had the same default.
I imagine they got complaints from users who had messed with the parameters, then complained their photos looked bad.
Lowest common denominator problem. The small % of users who misuse the ability was probably significantly larger than
that of those who valued and used it properly. Sigh.
Sharpish Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|