There is no single one size fits all sharpening software; but there are
several very good, flexible applications out there which vary in complexity
and cost. You can go to www.pixelgenius.com and take a look at Photokit
Sharpener, a sharpening program that will work with both 16 bit and 8 bit
workflows developed by Bruce Fraser, Jeff Swebe, et al. This program
devided sharpening up into three stages: Capture, Editing, and Output with
each stage allowing for a variety of sharpening technigues to choose from.
filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk wrote:
> At 12:48 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>> Thanks to everyone who replied to my questions. :-)
>>
>> My conclusion is that sharpening is not really needed for
>> sky/clouds, but that a small amount may be beneficial to offset
>> scan-induced softening and/or to help minimize the effects of
>> downsizing to jpegs. My workflow takes 55mb TIFFs down to ~1mb
>> TIFFs in a 5-step downsizing. These files are then used as
>> "webmasters" to create several sizes of jpegs. I do not print from
>> the large TIFFs (yet) but use them for stock, while all jpegs are
>> for web or previewing.
>>
>> With the above in mind, at what stage would a small sharpening or
>> contrast enhancement make the most sense *IF* I only want to do it
>> once, at one point in the process? Should I leave the TIFFs alone
>> but do something to make enhanced jpegs... or should this
>> enhancement occur earlier on the TIFFs?
>>
>> Is there any consensus on which software for sharpening (excluding
>> PS) offers the best results in the most simple, automated way?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Ed Verkaik
>
>
> Well, given your "once" constraint the simple answer is . . . "USM
> treatment should be the last thing you do before you save your
> otherwise-completely-edited" file to whatever format (presumably JPEG
> for online display) you use.
>
> As for the best one-step USM process: Fred Miranda's IS action for PS
> is the "best easy" (i.e., one-step) USM utility that I'm aware of.
> And it's reasonably priced. And if you decide to buy it, please use
> my site's link to get it, as then I'll receive a modest kickback from
> Fred. (All of this money goes directly back into the maintenance of
> my site.) You could find that link here:
>
>
> My first page was devoted to a simple comparison test of the FM IS
> action versus the one-shot USM utility offered by Picture Window Pro.
> I'm not trying to pick on the latter, but it will give you a good
> idea of the difference between USM utilities (the majority) which use
> a shotgun approach as opposed to USM techniques which look rather
> only (or at least primarily) to the _edges_ of the target image.
>
> You can find that comparison here:
>
> Happy sharpening!
>
> Tris
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate)
> in the message title or body
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
> Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ().
Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
