> You don't. Lightroom prints it. If you're sending to a lab such as Miller's,
> you either let them do the output sharpening, or you do it yourself. It's
> really not all that big a deal.
The stuff I send to Millers has a very specific sharpening method
applied. I sharpen to get the pixels themselves as sharp as possible.
Of course, this is usually done during conversion or first step after
conversion. It's usually some form of 0.6 radius USM cranked up to the
hilt. Then in editing I do whatever sharpening to correct for ID10T
errors. In my finalizing process, I'll do a little bit of LCE to get
the edges to pop and give it some 3D life. Finally, I go through one
last tiny bit of pixel sharpening to correct for any mushiness as a
result of the editing. But I NEVER output sharpen and I NEVER have
halos.
The reason is that Millers always resizes the image through there
print management system. It is doing additional sharpening as a result
of that process.
Because of it, I don't do any resizing or resampling (except in
extremely rare circumstances) of the images. I send them all in at the
same size and let the RIP take care of everything because a particular
image might be in wallets, 5x7s, 8x10s, 11x14s and also used in the
album. All on the same order.
To the halos comment. The problem with Chuck's "crunchy" output
sharpening is that it results more often than not in halos. I really
really really really really dispise halos. Halos can make in image
appear sharper, but I'd rather not go that far. It's a sign that
somebody didn't know when to stop.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|