Reading mode: Light Dark

Which degree of sharpening do you prefer?

Go to last post
Juli Valley said:
Yes, I showed them the 8 x 10 prints of both files. 11 out of 12
liked the more sharpened image.
Click to expand...
Of course they did. The sharpest version is objectively the best. Seeing both, it really is striking how much better it is.

For some reason, a lot of amateur photographers seem to dislike sharpening of images, and they cultivate an idea that the picture as it comes out from the camera is the only natural and acceptable result.

Any postprocessing, and sharpening in particular, is looked upon with disdain.

I am at a complete loss to understand why. Sharpening is indispensable to digital imaging, and in fact it makes any image truer to reality. Proper sharpening is an art in itself.

Do not listen to anyone who tries to tell you that sharpening is sinful.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/
 
Tomrok said:
I like the first one. The second one appears a bit overdone, but
sometimes I overdo it myself for the web. For printing, just enough
to give it a little sharpening is my preference. My two pennies
worth of feedback.
Click to expand...
Pardon me for saying this: What you say is mistaken.

Wrong is also your suggestion that printing requires less sharpening than the web. The opposite is true. For an image to be optimally sharp when printed, one has to sharpen until it starts to look a bit weird on screen. If you stop there, it will generally be optimal for print.

Even on the web, the second picture is far superior.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
 
...just keep in mind, Per, that not everyone has the same level of experience/knowledge, which also comes from the type of work required to perform with the equipment.

You are absolutely correct. You need, at least, a full 40%-60% boost of sharpeness over any stuff that you show in the web, if you pretend to print successfully.

Best regards,

Ferenc
Per Inge Oestmoen said:
Tomrok said:
I like the first one. The second one appears a bit overdone, but
sometimes I overdo it myself for the web. For printing, just enough
to give it a little sharpening is my preference. My two pennies
worth of feedback.
Click to expand...
Pardon me for saying this: What you say is mistaken.

Wrong is also your suggestion that printing requires less
sharpening than the web. The opposite is true. For an image to be
optimally sharp when printed, one has to sharpen until it starts to
look a bit weird on screen. If you stop there, it will generally be
optimal for print.

Even on the web, the second picture is far superior.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Click to expand...
 
People who have seen my prints (including other photographers) have admired them. Maybe that doesn't mean too much, but my wrong is right for me.
Per Inge Oestmoen said:
Tomrok said:
I like the first one. The second one appears a bit overdone, but
sometimes I overdo it myself for the web. For printing, just enough
to give it a little sharpening is my preference. My two pennies
worth of feedback.
Click to expand...
Pardon me for saying this: What you say is mistaken.

Wrong is also your suggestion that printing requires less
sharpening than the web. The opposite is true. For an image to be
optimally sharp when printed, one has to sharpen until it starts to
look a bit weird on screen. If you stop there, it will generally be
optimal for print.

Even on the web, the second picture is far superior.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Click to expand...
--
Tom
http://www.pbase.com/tomrok
 
 
...among the users of tools like FLEXSharp, you have people that not only make their living out of Digital Photography, but also people that compete in tournaments ran by judges. Their work is exposed to such levels of scrutiny and analysis that, most likely, may be even beyond your (or our) own assessment of what looks "good" or "bad".

Now, there is always the question left in the air: "could it be better"? "is there actual room for improvement?"

The answer is yes. (substantial room).

Best regards,

Ferenc
Tomrok said:
Per Inge Oestmoen said:
Tomrok said:
I like the first one. The second one appears a bit overdone, but
sometimes I overdo it myself for the web. For printing, just enough
to give it a little sharpening is my preference. My two pennies
worth of feedback.
Click to expand...
Pardon me for saying this: What you say is mistaken.

Wrong is also your suggestion that printing requires less
sharpening than the web. The opposite is true. For an image to be
optimally sharp when printed, one has to sharpen until it starts to
look a bit weird on screen. If you stop there, it will generally be
optimal for print.

Even on the web, the second picture is far superior.

Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
Click to expand...
--
Tom
http://www.pbase.com/tomrok
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top