Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: Chinese New Year celebrations in Chiang Mai - MOOSE specia

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Chinese New Year celebrations in Chiang Mai - MOOSE special ; -)
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2018 21:50:13 -0700
On 4/14/2018 6:48 PM, Victim of De Fault Mike wrote:
Nathan writes:

<<All the technical gibberish that was discussed in this
<<thread goes over my head, and I do not let Smugmug apply any sharpening when I
<<upload.

<<It is not free, but you most certainly get what you pay for in this case.

I guess I'm guilty of contributing to the technical gibberish.  It seems one 
doesn't get quite as much for what ones pays for  in some ways than
before.   The ability to change the downsize sharpening in Smugmug galleries 
has been removed!---harummph, bah humbug, grrrrrr.
Smugmug doesn't touch the original image as far as sharpening, and does still 
use the Lanczos algorithm with a default amount of 0.20 as before--confirmed by 
Smugmug. I usually just upload a very large jpeg as the downsized images for 
display were fine and the downsizing sharpening was adjustable anyway.
As Moose has explained in detail ( A Moose Monday article?),  all downsized 
images require some sharpening.
[True, but only a part of the more general truth that "all digitally sampled images 
require some sharpening"]

Indeed! I was rather pleased with that one. <http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=1>

Rereading it, it's interesting how well the basic point and thought experiments have held up. The image examples are quite elderly,  as the digital world has moved forward, but I still think make their point. If I were to write it now, the examples would be larger and clearer.

The big change since then is the introduction of generalized deconvolution apps. I'm working on a thought experiment to explain that. :-)

And I did get a little cutesy a couple of times . . .

    Assuming the other parameter defaults are unchanged the radius would be 1, 
threshold 0.05 with a sigma of 1.0. (Sigma in this context is the relative 
weight of pixels as a f(distance from the convolution kernal)
All these were adjustable for each image if one wanted before!  Portraits were 
best with tad lighter touch and some macros a bit more aggressive. People spend 
much time, dosh and effort on their  gear  and images and how it is finally 
displayed should be the photog's choice not some durn default.  It does work 
fine  for most images most of the time, but that is besides the point for a 
service like that, IMO.  They could have just let it be and those that did not 
want to fuss had the same default.

I imagine they got complaints from users who had messed with the parameters, then complained their photos looked bad. Lowest common denominator problem. The small % of users who misuse the ability was probably significantly larger than that of those who valued and used it properly. Sigh.

Sharpish Moose

--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz