Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ford  As I understand it, a raw 'image' is not capable of sharpening - it's just data that represents greyscales. Any sharpening done within a raw developer would be on the developed image - TIFF, JPEG , the developers native RGB format, whatever - so it's little different to sharpening in Photoshop, except you don't have the benefit of layers
You sharpen for the final viewing size of the image, so you would sharpen differently for an image to be printed at 20x16" on paper, to an image at 800x600 pixels displayed on a monitor. To sharpen an image for viewing at 800x600 pixels and display it at 1600x1200 or print it at 20x16" is wrong.
Ermm, what 'bloke'?
Jim |
Oh dear - I fear this is descending into a bit of an argument? No smiles from you at all there......
and you seem to have taken sections of my post out of context and without the friendly way they were said.
I'll tell you what - you stick to what you know and I'll do likewise as I don't want any teddies thrown in corners for all to see when I was only representing my own views in accord to what I do with
my images. I certainly don't want to continue with a detailed reposte re technicalities - I'm sure a lot of people would find it quite boring.
I've never been one to enjoy talking about photography in endless detail - I'd sooner be getting practice doing it.
Incidentally - the stock sites ask for no sharpening as
they want to do it later .......... obviously?
Which is why I don't do it myself - as I said my images are mainly for this purpose.
I just think there are far too many oversharpened images about as it's easy to get a little carried away.
I did it myself when I was first starting out and before my eyes and mind became more discerning. It certainly helped when other more experienced photographers pointed out my mistakes and I listened.
Also, as I said, it's good to raise one's game and if we don't we will never progress. This is how discernment and high standards are attained - through experience and listening to others. I know I, for one, am definately still learning and willing to listen to others as long as they don't try to tell me what stock sites want and what they don't want!
Incidentally -I had a look at your images in the
Gallery and there's some nice stuff there
Is there any particular reason why you chose Olympus? It seems even odder than my choice of Sony!
- My reasons being that Minolta have made some of the best glass about and as Anti shake is in the camera bodies they still fit!
Going back to the OP- (if you're still with us!
)
If you want really good detail on the cheap OH suggests buying a cheapish Nikon, getting a used 50mm lens (£60/70) and getting some reversal rings from China via Ebay. (£6) remeber - good glass is always preferable to a good camera.
Acher