Chris Barker wrote:
>That's interesting Moose as I use IS II quite a bit. I have some
>settings saved for my normal output (low ISO digital, high ISO digital
>and similar for scanned images) which I apply, tweak down using your
>technique and save. I find myself attenuating the effect to between 30
>and 50% most of the time.
>
Well, I suppose I might give it a second chance for some uses. If I were
only saving for the web, it would probably be fine, but I usually do
pretty much everything at full size and 16 bit depth, including
sharpening, and save a finished file for high quality printing or future
games. I then downsize, change to 8 bit and save a web JPEG. You can see
where IS II doesn't fit with this workflow. If I flatten all layers,
convert to 8 bit, sharpen and save, I can't save any layers and any
future adjustment could only be done in 8 bit. I occasionally want to
save a layer when I am unsure of which version I like best. I do
remember now that I like the halo reduction feature and have used it on
a few troublesome images.
>I suppose I like using it as it reduces the decisions that I have to make with
>Filter>Sharpen>USM.
>
Aren't there more controls in IS II than in USM? There are only the 3
sliders in USM. I'll admit that saved profiles are better thatn a bunch
of actions for different USM effects.
>But Save for the Web (and, by inference, Web Presenter) leave me cold.
> I cannot see the point in doing anything other than a single-step
>reduction in size, using Bicubic Smoother, to 600-800 pixels in width,
>followed by a bit (just a bit) of sharpening.
>
Interesting choice. I've never tried it, as ths PS instructions say:
* Bilinear for a medium-quality method.
* Bicubic for the slow but more precise method, resulting in the
smoothest tonal gradations.
* Bicubic Smoother when you're enlarging images.
* Bicubic Sharper for reducing the size of an image. This method
maintains the detail in a resampled image. It may, however,
over-sharpen some areas of an image. In this case, try using Bicubic.
So, I've never reduced with Bicubic Smoother. And I didn't like Bicubic
Sharpener when I tried it. That was a few versions ago. Maybe I should
take another look at it.
>Can you persuade me of the need to use anything more complicated? ;-)
>
Well, only two reasons. First, it isn't more complicated, unless you use
the sharpening options, then there are two things to select, instead of
just one. Actually, the interface is cleaner and simpler than Image Size.
Second, I think it gives better results than plain Bicubic
(non-smoother). Also I find the low sharpening option is quite good for
many images. Some time ago, I followed the advice of several sources to
downsize in steps with a little sharpening at each step. At least for
some images, I did find that I liked the results better than one step.
It seemed that more detail was retained without looking sharpened. The
method was, however, a pain, as different strategies seemed to work with
some images, but not so well with others. Then WP came along with the
ability to do that all that in a way that worked well automatically for
most images. And if the sharpening was too much, just go back a step and
do it again without sharpening, then sharpen separately, if necessary.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|