I would try using the sharpening rule I learned from Bruce Fraser's book
on sharpening. He suggests first, of course, cropping and resizing the
image to the final pixel dimensions for the print. To prepare for
sharpening he then displays the image at the ratio between screen ppi
and print dpi. For example, if the screen has 90 ppi and the print will
be 300 dpi then display the image at 90/300 = 0.3 or 30%. Then he says
sharpen until it looks very slightly crunchy to account for some
softening in the printing process. I find it a very good rule of thumb
for sharpening and I suspect it would work in your case when trying to
evaluate the look of a final print after sharpening.
If you can't see the halo when the image is displayed at 30% (or
whatever your criterion is) I don't think you'll see it in the print
either. Of course, you can further test that by blowing the image up to
20x30 and then cropping out a 4x6 or 5x7 test area that contains the
halo and print that small image.
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/17/2011 11:57 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> CS5 has a new refine edge box that bears digging into. The edge
> detection and smart radius box is damn near worth the price of the
> upgrade. Especially if you do a lot of compositing. I only say "damn
> near" because the "content-aware fill" _is_ worth the price of the
> upgrade.<g> I've beeb revisiting a few images from a ways back, and
> I've found instances where content-aware fill has done in a few
> seconds what I spent much more time carefully cloning.
>
> Just curious, but I wonder how much of this halo thing is a non-issue
> when it comes to prints? Obviously, the kind of halo surrounding the
> lighthouse in the Pounding picture is a problem that really shouldn't
> be shrugged off if one expects to sell expensive prints. It is
> noticeable in a print. That said, the halos you focused on in the New
> Harbor picture are utterly undetectable in a 7x11 test print. Maybe
> if I took it up to 20x30, they might show, but I'm not likely to do
> that. BTW, the halo that Marc and I were talking about is the softer
> and wider glow above the roof and trees on the left side.
> Cellular-level examination leads me to conclude that it's a result of
> light sky, dark silhouette coupled with a 10-stop ND filter and a
> long exposure that blurred cloud, salt spray and any other movements
> out there. I'll know more about that when I do more ND work of that
> type.
>
> --Bob
>
> On Sep 16, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Moose wrote:
>
>> Yup, Clone Tool. I don't know how else to do it after the fact.
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|