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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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: > http://tristanjohn.com/inkstwo.htm > > 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: http://tristanjohn.com/USMtest.htm > > Happy sharpening! > > Tris > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 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 (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.617 / Virus Database: 396 - Release Date: 3/9/04 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
