Dallas wrote:

Alan, there is nothing wrong with using the software in the camera to do
you sharpening for you. This notion that you should only do it in PS after
the fact is horse pucky.

I suggest you get intimately aquainted with USM and try it on subjects with a
lot of fine detail v. subjects with lower detail. The differences in settings
for the USM are very, very different in both cases; and again very different for
different ouput sizes (whether screen, thumbnail, small prints, large prints...)
The very variability of this suggests that letting an algorithm do it in
camera is taking risks with the image quality... and once artifacts from
sharpenning are introduced, they cannot be undone. If there was a single
auto-sharpenning algorithm that could be used on any given image, then PS would
have it. The one they do have is useless, hence USM.


When you are working professionally, editing and individually sharpening
hundreds of shots in Photoshop is not a feasible means of workflow.

Professionals will make USM adjustments on the output work at the work size. If
they don't the graphics staff certainly will.

The more work the camera can do and the less work you have to do after the
shoot, the better.

Not if the work in the camera reduces the ultimate usability of the image.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--