Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/03/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]To me, 78 is a considerable sharpening ............. not a great deal, but ............... B. On 7-mrt-2006, at 18:43, Adam Bridge wrote: > Oh - I mean that when I down-sampled the image in photoshop from it's > 4000 dpi version to make a 72 dpi version I do a small bit of > sharpening, with unsharp mask, because it's needed. But when I do that > I click back and forth between preview on and off looking at the main > image. If I see a marked difference I tone it down until I see just a > HINT of the sharpening, usually in the very high-contrast areas. > > Right now it's not easy for me to go back to the final image and pull > up the history in Photoshop so I can see what I did, but when I get > back and can do it, I'll check and see if I mucked around too much. > > Still, these are very sharp images when they were printed on my Epson > 4000, especially that big brick building. > > Thank you for your observations and for sharing them. I appreciate the > feedback on such prosaic images. > > Best regards, > > Adam > > > On 3/7/06, bruce <bruce@ralgo.nl> wrote: >> Overly sharp horizontals and verticals especially ................ >> but all images look super super crisp. >> >> Could of course be, that they are extra-sharp, carefully exposed with >> excellent contrast, exceptionally well scanned, not diddled in >> PS ............... what do you mean by "except for the last bit"? >> >> B. >> On 7-mrt-2006, at 16:54, Adam Bridge wrote: >> >>> Hmmmm - there was a BIT of unsharp mask done when they were reduced >>> for the web but it hardly showed to my eye - which is about how I do >>> it. What are you seeing that leads you to think that? I know the >>> night-time image has virtually no sharpening at all except for the >>> last bit which would be about 78 and radius of .8 in Photoshop. >>> >>> Thanks for your input - I'll look at the workflow and see if I did >>> something odd. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> On 3/7/06, bruce <bruce@ralgo.nl> wrote: >>>> To me, they all have excessive unsharp mask, Adam. Please comment. >>>> >>>> Otherwise a great series of well composed images. Thanks. >>>> >>>> B. >>>> >>>> On 7-mrt-2006, at 8:07, Adam Bridge wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is a very strange posting because the images aren't anything >>>>> special and yet I like different things about all three of them - >>>>> all >>>>> related to the use of black and white film, in particular Tri X. >>>>> >>>>> This image was shot from our hotel home across the hotel parking >>>>> structure to this building across the street. The old-time fire >>>>> escape >>>>> and the textures of the brick really spoke to me. Printed large >>>>> there's a huge amount of detail in this image that the small >>>>> version >>>>> that you see only hints at. It was shot at 1/1000th of a >>>>> second, I'm >>>>> sure. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.adambridge.com/Photos/2006/02/23/TX400-002-R1.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> The inside of the Long Beach Convention Center spoke to me - the >>>>> receding arches of the ceiling, so bright, all these wonderful >>>>> gradations. This catches that ceiling. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.adambridge.com/Photos/2006/02/23/TX400-004-R1.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> I've always wanted an evening shot. As we were crossing Ocean >>>>> Ave to >>>>> the hotel from the convention center the sky was still luminous >>>>> and >>>>> there was this illuminated bank building across the street so I >>>>> snapped a couple of images. This was probably about 1/30th of a >>>>> second. >>>>> >>>>> <http://www.adambridge.com/Photos/2006/02/23/TX400-030-R1.jpg> >>>>> >>>>> All the images are on Tri X at 400, processed in XTOL 1:3 at 68 >>>>> degrees with my own agitation scheme of 30 seconds continuous, 4 >>>>> minutes every 30 seconds, 4 minutes ever minute and 4 minutes >>>>> every 2 >>>>> minutes. Maybe it makes a difference, maybe it doesn't, but I >>>>> like the >>>>> look of the negative I get from it. >>>>> >>>>> Shot with M6TTL and either the 50mm f2 or the 35mm f2. >>>>> >>>>> Your comments are invited and welcome. Maybe these speak to you, >>>>> maybe >>>>> they don't. I was uncertain about whether to post them but >>>>> figured - >>>>> ah heck - what's a few snapshots amongst friends and I might learn >>>>> something. >>>>> >>>>> Adam Bridge >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>>> information >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information