i never use USM because it doesn't sharpen, it adds contrast. that means
that things that are slightly out of focus don't become focused, they have
higher contrast. a proper deblur filter like Sharpen and Sharpen more do
what they say, but have no tuning controls. FocusFixer is one of the few
sharpening plugins that does bring things slightly out of focus into focus.
it also brings out real detail in the image that was previously slightly
fuzzy. the new Photoshop CS2 Smart Sharpen also does this, but i haven't yet
figured out the exact definitions of all the sliders. until you compare a
proper deblur filter to USM, you don't know what you have been settling for.
real deblur doesn't come cheap. on double-resolution RAW files, processing
typically takes over 10 minutes per image on a fast processor with lots of
RAM. for those mathematically inclined, proper deblur uses a deconvolution
kernel and is what NASA uses to correct for lens distortions in cameras it
sends aloft.
Herb....
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: PESO: Heron Rookery
I know that sharpneing post conversion is conventional wisdom. But I've
tried both ways with some images. In certain cases I've found that
sharpening in the RAW converter yields a final image with better apparent
sharpness and no artifacts than does applying USM after conversion. In
other case, I've found that USM is superior. I frequently try both and make
a decision after comparison. Sometimes, if I've sharpened a large file for
printing, I'll add a bit more USM after downsizing for the web. However, in
all cases, high magnification and careful examination of the final results
are called for.
