Oh,
Point Spread Function --describing how the image is blurred in the
first place. It is best (but not often precisely known) to know this
and the deconvolution is
really an image restoration rather than making edges sharper. Suppose
it is almost semantics . The blind methods ( e.g.Lucy- Richardson) do
often work nicely and
converge (or not) on the maximum likelihood estimation after an
iterative process.
A modest amount of sharpening can be thought of as removing edge
blurring as an artifact of digital processing (Moose has elegantly
posted on this several times). So, bottom line, applying either or both
techniques very
conservatively and skillfully would not disqualify one from a PP
minimalist, IMO. :-)
CH's flower portraits in both animal and plant kingdoms ares so nice
that this doesn't seem to matter.
Still Keeping the Convoluted in Deconvolution, Mike
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread78.htm
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/image-restoration1/index.html
Thanks, I think...although I must admit I was lost by the third
acronym. I love
it when you guys talk dirty ;-)
Cheers,
Nathan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 1:44 AM, usher99@xxxxxxx wrote:
> Most excellent image poster Nathan writes:
> This particular image is not Leica, but it is shot with a very good
> lens (35mm
> Macro Limited) on a Pentax K5, and the cat's eyes are as sharp as can
> be. The
> sharpening you apply does not make them any sharper, it just creates
an
> illusion of sharpness in areas of the fur that were not in focus in
the
> original.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|