I think I got a good one!

Ï "M-M" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...

My "thing" with photography is to capture the beauty right in front of
you. Sure you can go to an exotic place and get real nice photos, but
there is also a lot to see all around you every day.

This one was taken right from my window. Interesting bokeh creating a
frame. It is untouched in Photoshop and is the full frame uncropped;
just reduced 25% for viewing. I hope you like it- if not let me know
what I can do to improve it (maybe tweak the colors?):

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/dsc_4460.jpg

--
m-m


Very nice!
Why aren't you using Mode II, AdobeRGB, color space?
Pic may need a tiny bit of USM.
Very nice again!!

M-M wrote:
In article 1170938995.367643@athnrd02,
"gpaleo" wrote:

http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/dsc_4460.jpg

Very nice!
Why aren't you using Mode II, AdobeRGB, color space?
Pic may need a tiny bit of USM.

I was but I read (from Ken Rockwell) that sRGB is better so I tried it.
It printed fine. Am I losing some options?

It's 'better' because most print shops use it automatically, and most
people don't know from color spaces, and it's the color space that most
web browsers display. Adobe RGB is 'better' as it has a wider gamut. For
many many shots, it really doesn't make any difference.

I also tried USM at 20/20 and 20/30 but it seemed to lose subtle shading
so I left it as it was. Bad enough I was stuck in jpg-Normal.

PS uses three settings, so I am unfamiliar with 20/20 USM is. Can that
be readily translated into amount, radius and threshold?

Very nice shot!

--
john mcwilliams

Ed Ruf Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:15:42 -0500, in rec.photo.digital M-M
wrote:

The first value is the radius, the second; amount. Threshold was 0. So I
tried R=20,A=20,T=0 and R=20, A=30, T=0.

Here's the original if you want to play with it:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mhmyers/temp/DSC_4460.JPG

Meant to mention this before, but this triggered the thought again.
One reason not to use in camera sharpening is that it should be the
very last adjustment made to the image. This would include any
resizing. Also, the usm parameters are not universal, but related to
the size of things in the image being sharpened. So the usm settings
will be different for this original, compared to what they would be to
your 25% size image.

And, yet, I've read that some very high end procedures use a small bit
of sharpening as the first step, and indeed, saving final sharpening as
the very last step, dependent, as you say, on lots of things, esp. image
size.

--

john mcwilliams

Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:15:27 -0800, in rec.photo.digital John McWilliams
wrote:

Ed Ruf Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!) wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 13:15:42 -0500, in rec.photo.digital M-M
wrote:

The first value is the radius, the second; amount. Threshold was 0. So I
tried R=20,A=20,T=0 and R=20, A=30, T=0.

Here's the original if you want to play with it:

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mhmyers/temp/DSC_4460.JPG
Meant to mention this before, but this triggered the thought again.
One reason not to use in camera sharpening is that it should be the
very last adjustment made to the image. This would include any
resizing. Also, the usm parameters are not universal, but related to
the size of things in the image being sharpened. So the usm settings
will be different for this original, compared to what they would be to
your 25% size image.
And, yet, I've read that some very high end procedures use a small bit
of sharpening as the first step, and indeed, saving final sharpening as
the very last step, dependent, as you say, on lots of things, esp. image
size.

I'm assuming you mean this
http://www.creativepro.com/story/fea...l?origin=story
or
http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf
or variances thereof?

I wonder if these are appropriate for jpgs at all, let alone those which
have been sharpened in camera.

Yes, the above Bruce Fraser article describes it, and IIRC, Bill Hilton
has or is using it, or at least has posted about it.

Certainly a jpeg right out of a camera wouldn't be a candidate, unless
it's one where sharpening has been turned off- a pretty small subset of
photogs, as if you go that route, you might as well shoot RAW. So, yes,
I'd certainly think it'd be rare when it comes to using it effectively
on jpegs.

--
John McWilliams