Re: Is this over sharpened?

Mark Thomas wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:41:09 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in
<giou0t$98p$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

John Navas wrote:
On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:28:18 -0600, Jim Reece
<jreece@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
<qmjuk419d17fod8hd3n4b8lro30fbjpn3e@xxxxxxx>:

Some people who know how to use deconvolving software appropriately always get
better results than using unsharp mask techniques. Those that are too stupid or
untalented to know how to use software like Focus Magic in the correct manner
will always find the opposite to be true.
No kidding. :)

And yet, *still* no examples. Words on usenet are worth pretty much what you pay for them.

Grow up.

As John doesn't want to participate, here's the *only* relevant example on Focus Magic's page (ie an example of *final sharpening*, rather than correcting motion blur or oof) - it's the top set of images:
http://www.focusmagic.com/exampleunsharpmask.htm
Note that they happily admit that they have used inappropriate USM settings...

Here's *my* version using USM with more sensible settings (the original and Focus Magic'd images are unchanged, I've just redone the middle one:
http://geocities.com/chrlzs/focus_magic_test.jpg

By all means load them up into an editor and look carefully. Can you spot the difference? Do you not see the artefacts in the FM'd version, and how they are much reduced in my USM effort? I haven't even seriously taken any time to optimise the USM, just had a stab with what I thought might work.

Neither John or Jurgen/D-Mac seem to be able to do this sort of comparison, and want you to just take their word on it - they *say* they know how to use FM to get better results, but won't (can't?) prove it.

So, dear reader, who do you believe? The person who posts examples, or the one who runs away, calling out "Grow up"?

Do you actually know what de-convolution is? From your 5 year old resources it certainly doesn't sound like it. And what's this grandstanding about? You're not on the stage here, just given enough space to make a fool out of yourself.

I can't quite work out what you are doing with your images. You seem to be hovering around waiting to start fights with people about the current technology they are working with when the photos you've posted this past year are at best, poor examples that look more like a kid playing around with his mothers PC than someone claiming to have such a long history as a photographer as you claim.

So far all you've done in this sharpening thread is attempt to badger those who do work with advanced sharpening routines into revealing to you - the one making a fool out of yourself - where to go for 'examples' or explain how it works.

Here's a new flash Mr Troll.

De-convolution is the sharpening routing of the future that is on sale today. I can't imagine a child like you finding the cash for it but I'll give you a clue anyway.

"This is the finest image sharpening product ever produced".

Of course it depends on whether or not you regard Michael Reichmann as an authority on image quality and how to obtain it. Knowing you, you'll probably want to start a fight with him too, trying to peddle your belief that the world really is flat.

You absolutely do need to grow up child. I don't have a problem with you learning from the Internet and then trying to make out you are an expert but please try to make sure what you learn is today's technology, not fossilised stuff 'real' photographer's abandoned years ago.

And don't let me having my 'net PC synced to Russian time bother you. We have the Internet here too you know?

As if the universe starts and stops in a backwater like Australia. LOL!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: need to be sharpened?
    ... Bill Tuthill wrote: ... USM is not sharpening. ... But far fewer images are improved with USM ... Most advocates of heavy USM are not looking closely at their images. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: need to be sharpened?
    ... Floyd L. Davidson wrote: ... USM is not sharpening. ... But far fewer images are improved with USM ... Most advocates of heavy USM are not looking closely at their images. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: need to be sharpened?
    ... masked) for the desired print size. ... USM is not sharpening. ... But far fewer images are improved with USM ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Is this over sharpened?
    ... Note that they happily admit that they have used inappropriate USM settings... ... For final image sharpening, where the image just needs an 'edge', it has no particular advantage over normal USM. ... Try to remember *that* is what the thread is about - not motion blur or trying to recover significantly oof images, which is where deconvolution may be more useful. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Is this over sharpened?
    ... For any 'normal' image, with background and foreground detail, deconvoluting will almost invariably introduce unpleasant artefacts - you can see them all over the samples at their own page. ... On that first image I get a much better result from a single-pass USM *with more ... Deconvolution can be very useful in astronomy, where the scenes are as simple as possible, and of course they can help do little party tricks like reveal number plate characters or clock faces when they appear to be lost in a blur. ... For 'normal' final sharpening, which usually involves an already-in-focus image that just needs a little extra 'edge' I remain unimpressed and wouldn't pay anything for such a program. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)