Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/05/31
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I still don't see how it makes a difference to the final product, i.e. the output in any form. We are discussing negatives here, to use a film analogy. This, to my mind is a meaningless discussion, like whose negatives are better, Adams or Weston? Cheers Jayanand On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:07 AM, Thein Onn Ming <mingthein at gmail.com> wrote: > That is what I have to do to get the same amount of perceived sharpness (at > least to my eyes). > > It doesn't matter at all for the final print. > > But it is a good illustration of how much inherently sharper a non-AA > camera > (the M8) is than the best of the AA cameras (arguably, the D3) straight out > of the box with sharpening set to zero in ACR defaults. > > On Jun 1, 2009, at 10:30 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > >> Ming, >> Why should that make a difference, or matter at all? After all all of >> us have our own preferences on how sharp a print should look. Are both >> prints good, and artifact free at the end of the process? That is all >> that should matter! >> Cheers >> Jayanand >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Thein Onn Ming <mingthein at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> I still sharpen the M8, but not very much - typically something like >>> 100/0.3/0 using PS CS3 smart sharpen, as opposed to 200/0.4/0 and then >>> another pass of 100/0.2/0 with the D3's output. Quite a big difference... >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > THEIN Onn Ming > *photohorologer ming at www.mingthein.com > www.flickr.com/mingthein > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >