Image sharpening

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Oct 16, 2003.

  1. Mike

    Mike Guest

    In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit of
    sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture I
    process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that seems
    to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people in
    here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following this
    procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to what
    I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what you
    think:

    1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
    list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    weird but don't worry!
    3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
    and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an eye
    on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    result.
    5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.

    I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
    but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome any
    comments.
     
    Mike, Oct 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike

    Doc Guest

    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

    of
    > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture

    I
    > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    seems
    > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    in
    > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    this
    > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    what
    > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what you
    > think:
    >
    > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
    > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > weird but don't worry!
    > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
    > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    eye
    > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > result.
    > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    >
    > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
    > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    any
    > comments.
    >
    >


    Real photographers go with what they shoot...

    Doc
     
    Doc, Oct 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. are you referring to Photoshop Elements or Photoshop V or some other
    version? I can't find the "hard light" choice in Levels in Photoshop V.

    Mike wrote:

    > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit of
    > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture I
    > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that seems
    > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people in
    > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following this
    > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to what
    > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what you
    > think:
    >
    > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
    > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > weird but don't worry!
    > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
    > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an eye
    > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > result.
    > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    >
    > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
    > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome any
    > comments.
    >
    >
     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 16, 2003
    #3
  4. Mike

    Don Coon Guest

    Take a look at UltraSharpen6 (US6) Pro or the free Lite version. IMO, it
    does a *much* better job than USM alone. It's an automated process including
    they types of steps you list. The $20 Pro version includes 6 sharpening
    levels, a manual mode and batch processing. The free Lite version has one
    level only.

    http://www.ultrasharpen.com/

    One thing I like about US6 is that sharpening is applied selectively. For
    example blue skies or other expanses of undetailed color end up noisy/grainy
    when USM is used. Not with US6.

    Here's an outdated (Version 5) review using the manual mode -- a mode I
    seldom use.
    http://the-internet-eye.com/Reviews2001/oct/UltraSharp5Pro/


    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

    of
    > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture

    I
    > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    seems
    > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    in
    > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    this
    > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    what
    > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what you
    > think:
    >
    > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
    > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > weird but don't worry!
    > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
    > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    eye
    > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > result.
    > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    >
    > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
    > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    any
    > comments.
    >
    >
     
    Don Coon, Oct 16, 2003
    #4
  5. In article <R7yjb.58596$>,
    "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote:

    > Real photographers go with what they shoot...


    That's just plain wrong. Real photographers try to get all the
    information they can on the negative, slide or chip and then manipulate
    it as required in the darkroom or the computer.

    Ansel Adams used to say the negative was the score and the darkrooom
    work was the performance of the score. It is damn near impossible to
    record on film or chip what you are seeing and trying to record. All
    you can do is record the information that is there and then try to
    extract your vision when processing the image.

    --
    Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
    [Mac]
    [Office]
     
    Robert Peirce, Oct 16, 2003
    #5
  6. Mike

    Don Coon Guest

    "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message
    news:R7yjb.58596$...
    SNIP

    > >

    >
    > Real photographers go with what they shoot...
    >
    > Doc
    >


    And include the inherent blur introduced by the filters placed in front of
    the CCD or CMOS sensors?
     
    Don Coon, Oct 16, 2003
    #6
  7. Mike

    Don Forsling Guest

    --

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message
    news:R7yjb.58596$...
    >
    > Real photographers go with what they shoot...
    >
    > Doc
    >

    Well, that's a snappy line, Doc, but as you must know, it's not true now and
    never has been (except in the case of rank amateurs)--not in art
    photography, not in journalism, not in advertsing work, not in portrait
    work. In fact, what you wrote must be a troll. Shame on me for
    responding---
    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --
    Don Forsling

    "Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"
     
    Don Forsling, Oct 16, 2003
    #7
  8. Hi Robert

    > Ansel Adams used to say the negative was the score and the darkrooom
    > work was the performance of the score. It is damn near impossible to
    > record on film or chip what you are seeing and trying to record. All
    > you can do is record the information that is there and then try to
    > extract your vision when processing the image.


    Thanks for so succintly stating the truth as many of us see it.

    Stan
     
    Stanley Krute, Oct 16, 2003
    #8
  9. Mike

    Mike Guest

    Photoshop 7


    "Bay Area Dave" <> wrote in message
    news:%myjb.63$...
    > are you referring to Photoshop Elements or Photoshop V or some other
    > version? I can't find the "hard light" choice in Levels in Photoshop V.
    >
    > Mike wrote:
    >
    > > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a

    bit of
    > > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each

    picture I
    > > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    seems
    > > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    in
    > > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    this
    > > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    what
    > > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what

    you
    > > think:
    > >
    > > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the

    Filter
    > > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > > weird but don't worry!
    > > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the

    image
    > > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    eye
    > > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > > result.
    > > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    > >
    > > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp

    Mask,
    > > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    any
    > > comments.
    > >
    > >

    >
     
    Mike, Oct 16, 2003
    #9
  10. "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> writes:

    > "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

    > of
    > > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some


    [snip]

    > Real photographers go with what they shoot...


    That is pernicious nonsense. Find me even *one* example of a
    first-tier photographer who doesn't use some sharpening with digital
    images. They *need* it -- in fact most cameras, except for the
    pro-level ones, do some arbitrary amount before writing the picture to
    the cards. Pro-level, and some others, let you control that or even
    turn it off completely. I turn it off completely -- so that I can
    control it myself in photoshop. It's a necessary part of digital
    imaging.

    Besides, every great photographer that I know anything about has used
    crops, dodging and burning, special processing, and every other tool
    available at the time to get the results they want.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 16, 2003
    #10
  11. Mike

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    I've read a few articles on doing this and tried it several times but never
    felt it was doing much for my pictures - OTOH I don't sharpen with USM very
    often either. If you still have the original how can you possibly be
    butchering your pictures? If what you come up with looks better than the
    original then what is the problem - I say do it. After all the final result
    is what counts.
    I have seen unsharp masking taken too far - everything looks ghastly.
    And I've seen chemical prints which were unsharp masked too much. I imagine
    any sharpening can be overdone - and probably quite easily. Why not make
    copies of a shot and sharpen each to a different degree (I guess with the
    high pass method it would mean different opacity of the sharpened layer) and
    compare the prints for a while -- see what looks best to you.
    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Mike" <> wrote in message
    news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

    of
    > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture

    I
    > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    seems
    > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    in
    > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    this
    > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    what
    > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what you
    > think:
    >
    > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
    > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > weird but don't worry!
    > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
    > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    eye
    > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > result.
    > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    >
    > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
    > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    any
    > comments.
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 16, 2003
    #11
  12. Mike

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    So Ansel Adams must have been a putz then. Into the killfile troll - you
    aren't worth the time.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
    "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message
    news:R7yjb.58596$...
    >
    > "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a

    bit
    > of
    > > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each

    picture
    > I
    > > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    > seems
    > > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    > in
    > > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    > this
    > > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    > what
    > > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what

    you
    > > think:
    > >
    > > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the

    Filter
    > > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > > weird but don't worry!
    > > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the

    image
    > > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    > eye
    > > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > > result.
    > > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    > >
    > > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp

    Mask,
    > > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    > any
    > > comments.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Real photographers go with what they shoot...
    >
    > Doc
    >
    >
     
    Tony Spadaro, Oct 16, 2003
    #12
  13. Mike, I finally found out that Photoshop Elements has the same
    functionality, and I got it to work! Amazing. Thanks

    dave

    Mike wrote:

    > Photoshop 7
    >
    >
    > "Bay Area Dave" <> wrote in message
    > news:%myjb.63$...
    >
    >>are you referring to Photoshop Elements or Photoshop V or some other
    >>version? I can't find the "hard light" choice in Levels in Photoshop V.
    >>
    >>Mike wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a

    >
    > bit of
    >
    >>>sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    >>>Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each

    >
    > picture I
    >
    >>>process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    >
    > seems
    >
    >>>to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    >
    > in
    >
    >>>here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    >
    > this
    >
    >>>procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    >
    > what
    >
    >>>I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what

    >
    > you
    >
    >>>think:
    >>>
    >>>1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    >>>2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the

    >
    > Filter
    >
    >>>list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    >>>weird but don't worry!
    >>>3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    >>>4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the

    >
    > image
    >
    >>>and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    >
    > eye
    >
    >>>on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    >>>result.
    >>>5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    >>>
    >>>I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp

    >
    > Mask,
    >
    >>>but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    >>>butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    >
    > any
    >
    >>>comments.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
     
    Bay Area Dave, Oct 16, 2003
    #13
  14. Mike

    Chuck Gadd Guest

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:09:04 GMT, Robert Peirce
    <> wrote:

    >Ansel Adams used to say the negative was the score and the darkrooom
    >work was the performance of the score.


    Another fitting Ansel Adams quote:

    "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in
    establishing tonal relationships. "


    Chuck Gadd
    http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
     
    Chuck Gadd, Oct 16, 2003
    #14
  15. Mike

    Chuck Gadd Guest

    On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:42:57 GMT, "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote:
    >
    >Real photographers go with what they shoot...


    yeah, right. They just drop them off at the hour hour photo place....

    Bozo.


    Chuck Gadd
    http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua
     
    Chuck Gadd, Oct 16, 2003
    #15
  16. Mike

    Doc Guest

    >> "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > > news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > > > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a

    > bit
    > > of
    > > > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying

    some
    > > > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each

    > picture
    > > I
    > > > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    > > seems
    > > > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what

    people
    > > in
    > > > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of

    following
    > > this
    > > > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side

    to
    > > what
    > > > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what

    > you
    > > > think:
    > > >
    > > > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > > > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the

    > Filter
    > > > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look

    decidedly
    > > > weird but don't worry!
    > > > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > > > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the

    > image
    > > > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep

    an
    > > eye
    > > > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with

    the
    > > > result.
    > > > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    > > >
    > > > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp

    > Mask,
    > > > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > > > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd

    welcome
    > > any
    > > > comments.
    > > >
    > > >

    > >
    > > Real photographers go with what they shoot...
    > >
    > > Doc
    > >
    > >

    >



    "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:K_Ajb.11625$...
    > So Ansel Adams must have been a putz then. Into the killfile troll -

    you
    > aren't worth the time.
    >


    No, he did a little burning and dodging when he printed his image-- he
    didn't remake and recreate it-- turning it into something it never was and
    that he had never envisioned looking through the viewfinder.

    And if you really want to know the plain truth, photographers who wear a
    jock shoot slides!

    Doc
     
    Doc, Oct 16, 2003
    #16
  17. "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> writes:

    > No, he did a little burning and dodging when he printed his image-- he
    > didn't remake and recreate it-- turning it into something it never was and
    > that he had never envisioned looking through the viewfinder.


    Read his descriptions of what he did in _Examples: The Making of 40
    Photographs_. Certainly he didn't mostly "remake and recreate" things
    -- but what we're discussing is moderate use of unsharp masking! He
    did things far, far more disruptive to the image values than that --
    for example, he used two-bath development.

    > And if you really want to know the plain truth, photographers who wear a
    > jock shoot slides!


    You're 10 years out of date.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <dragaera.info/>
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Oct 16, 2003
    #17
  18. Mike

    Rupert Guest

    "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message news:<R7yjb.58596$>...
    > "Mike" <> wrote in message
    > news:bmmabh$rbt$...
    > > In my experience, most digital pictures benefit to some extent from a bit

    > of
    > > sharpening. For some time now, I have been in the habit of applying some
    > > Unsharp Mask in Photoshop at the end of all my other work on each picture

    > I
    > > process for print. Recently, I was shown a procedure in Photoshop that

    > seems
    > > to do a better job than the Unsharp Mask and I was wondering what people

    > in
    > > here think of it. While I am very impressed by the results of following

    > this
    > > procedure, something inside me is saying there has to be a down side to

    > what
    > > I am doing - I don't know why, just a gut feeling :) Let me know what you
    > > think:
    > >
    > > 1. Create a Duplicate Layer of an open, single layer image.
    > > 2. Run a High Pass filter over the new layer (it's in Others on the Filter
    > > list) and select a 10.0 pixel setting. Your picture will look decidedly
    > > weird but don't worry!
    > > 3. In the Levels pallette, Change from Normal to Hard Light.
    > > 4. Reduce Opacity to somewhere between 20% and 50% (depending on the image
    > > and how much sharpening is required) making sure preview is On. Keep an

    > eye
    > > on your picture while changing Opacity until you are satisfied with the
    > > result.
    > > 5. Flatten the image in the Layers drop-down.
    > >
    > > I find this routine usually gives me better results than the Unsharp Mask,
    > > but I am sure there are people out there who will now tell me I am
    > > butchering my pictures in some way! They may well be right, I'd welcome

    > any
    > > comments.
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Real photographers go with what they shoot...
    >
    > Doc


    Real photographers knows that post-processing with digital is part of
    life. Perhaps you have a crappy camera that appllies over-saturation
    and sharpening before you have a chance to do it yourself.
     
    Rupert, Oct 16, 2003
    #18
  19. Mike

    Doc Guest

    "David Dyer-Bennet" <> wrote in message
    news:-b.net...
    > "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> writes:
    >
    > > And if you really want to know the plain truth, photographers who wear a
    > > jock shoot slides!

    >
    > You're 10 years out of date.
    > --
    > David Dyer-Bennet, <>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>


    My teenager tells me the same thing-- and my response to you would be the
    same as it is to him;-)

    Doc
     
    Doc, Oct 17, 2003
    #19
  20. Mike

    Tom Guest

    "Doc" <doc @ doc..net> wrote in message
    news:grCjb.9881$...
    > > So Ansel Adams must have been a putz then. Into the killfile troll -

    > you
    > > aren't worth the time.
    > >

    >
    > No, he did a little burning and dodging when he printed his image-- he
    > didn't remake and recreate it-- turning it into something it never was and
    > that he had never envisioned looking through the viewfinder.



    Bullshit.

    I had the opportunity to read some of AA's printing and retouching "notes",
    stuff he wrote to be able to consistently reproduce his prints time after
    time. The notes on ONE print went four closely written pages.

    And I am not talking about "a little dodging and burning". I am talking
    about modifications up to and including removing elements from the scene.

    "No, he did a little burning and dodging when he printed his image... "

    Where are you getting this crap?

    Tom
     
    Tom, Oct 17, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cooter

    In-Camera Sharpening - Good or Bad?

    Cooter, Jul 14, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,532
    Paul H.
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. jeff liss

    D100 Question: Image Sharpening

    jeff liss, Aug 10, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    394
    Chris Hoopes
    Aug 10, 2003
  3. Don F

    D70 Raw Image Sharpening - some or none

    Don F, Jun 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    854
    Rodney Myrvaagnes
    Jun 17, 2004
  4. john
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,210
    Gisle Hannemyr
    Jul 28, 2004
  5. Anthony
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    580
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Feb 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page