Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro

[Barbara & Martin Greene <martbarb@earthlink.net>]

I have to disagree with this negative view, at least when it comes to using
NikSharpener Pro for turning out prints.  I've seen many excellent reviews
of it, including one by the landscape photographer Michael Reichman.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/nic_sharpner.htm.  I am a very satisfied
customer and I'm sure there are many others.

Martin


> From: "Tom Scales" <tscales@attglobal.net>
> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2001 20:01:01 -0500
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: NikSharpener Pro
> 
> Well, now that I am done building the pages, I admit that contrary to my
> initial optimism, when I view the completed pages, they are oversharpened.
> Darn.  I wanted this to work better. I'll play with it some more, but I
> suspect I've thrown away the money.

Tom
Have you tried using it on its lowest setting, Anna?  What are you scanning
from.  My experience is primarily with slides although I've also used it on
a few negatives. 
> 
> I'll look into what you just suggested.
> 
> Tom> At 19:24 09-09-01 +0000, you wrote:
>>> I find
>>> Nik Sharpener utterly useless-- it ALWAYS oversharpens, no matter what
>>> settings I use.
>> 
>> 
>> Agreed. I've seen it in action and think it's grossly overpriced for what
>> little it does as opposed to custom Photoshop actions or packages like
>> UltraSharpenPro.
>> 
>>> I can do a better job with careful settings on PS's USM
>>> tool, sharpening individual channels, etc. The BEST way is to use one of
> the
>>> PS Actions that creates a custom edge mask for you image before you apply
>>> USM. I forget the URL for Johnny's versions, but there is also a very
> good
>>> one from Katrin Eismann at www.digitalretouch.org.
>> 
>> 
>> See ftp://ftp.pinkheadedbug.com
>> and http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html
>> 
>> 
> 
>