Bob Whitmire wrote:
> Boy, I'll say! I was in Chuck's camp there at first, then I flipped
> the switch on my glasses to "subtle" mode and saw the difference.
> IMHO, you may have traveled past subtle here, though. But then what
> lies on the far side of subtle?
>
Humph. I know you pay very close attention to fine detail on your
prints. Why not on web images?
Am I the only one fretting about making his web images look as good as
possible? In most of our cases, many more people are going to see our
web versions than prints.
It drives me crazy that there are some subjects, much foliage, for
example, that looks wonderful at larger sizes - and either smooshy or
funny at ~800 pixels wide.
I take at least a brief look at how some sharpening will look on
virtually every image I'm going to show on the web. My sharpening action
for that takes just a second and leaves me with a separate layer I can
just click on and off to see the effect.
I must be awfully picky. As soon as I looked at this one, I could see
that sharpening picked up the sparkle and life of the liquid soup and
contents while making the dried soup unnaturally gritty looking -
obviously over sharpened.
Another interesting effect of sharpening at these relatively small sizes
is the effect on small highlights. Much of the sparkle on the shiny bits
in shadow that I like in this image came about in the final sharpening
step <http://image66media.com/g2/main.php?g2_itemId=352>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|