Digital BW, The Print

Well cool. I've never heard of them, but found this googling around from
your hint.:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

This article pretty much sums up what I've found through trial, error,
and lots of head scratching. It says it was published last November. If
only it had been earlier, I might not have lost quite so much hair. 

Anyone tried their PhotoKit Sharpener package? Is it enough better than
Photoshop's native unsharp masking tools to make it worth the money?


On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 14:04, Steve Kale wrote:

> Broadly consistent with the Photokit guys.  Capture sharpening, Creative
> sharpening (if desired) and then Output Sharpening.
> 
> 
> From: hogarth <hogarth@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 13:19:56 -0400
> To: "digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com"
> <digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Sharpening vs. Print size [was: Image Density vs.
> Print Size]
> 
> Ummm... why not? Worst that can happen is I get flamed as a heretic.
> Again. This theory is not supported by house painters, however. 8-(
> 
> Sharpening should be done in several stages. All scanning softens the
> image by definition; scanning lays a deterministic sampling grid over a
> stochastic spread of grain clumps. First, you do what I call a grain
> sharpening, to restore the sharpness of the image after scanning.
> 
> Digital output also softens an image. Printing, for instance, converts
> square pixels into round-ish blobs of ink. Resampling algorithms either
> sort through data and throw some of it away, or sort through data and
> manufacture more based on what the algorithms see. This of course
> softens the image. How much softening depends on how much you change,
> and how much you can see.
> 
> For example, take an image (at 360dpi) and print it at printer
> resolution 1440, and at 2880 (or any other two printer resolutions).
> When you compare the images, the 2880 often looks sharper than the 1440.
> It's not because the data in the file you sent to the printer was
> sharper; that data didn't change. It's because in one case the printer
> used 4 ink dots per pixel, and the other case it used 8 ink dots per
> pixel. The 8 ink dots can more accurately reproduce the pixel, and thus
> the print appears a bit sharper.
> 
> To deal with this, here's what I do. Of course, YMMV. First, I do a
> light grain sharpening just after scanning (let the cries of "heresy!"
> begin). Then, just before output, I do a heavier sharpening (after I
> resize for output). If you are doing severe downsampling for web
> publishing, you'll need to really sharpen the image to get it to be
> representative of the image when viewed on a monitor. If I'm outputting
> to a printer and printing a smallish image (8x10 say) the sharpening is
> lighter. As the size goes up, so does the output sharpening. All of this
> just to get the image to "look consistent" across sizes. To my eye.
> 
> Unfortunately, I haven't come up with a rule of thumb for sharpening on
> either end. On the scanning end, it's going to depend on your scanner
> and your enlargement factor, your film, your processing, etc... On the
> output end, it's going to depend on your output device, your enlargement
> factor, the detail in your image, etc....
> 
> There are those that say that sharpening should be a three step thing,
> with a local area sharpening done as part of image manipulation. I've
> never seen the need for that with my images. Might be useful for some
> though.
> 
> So.... While I wish that sharpening were a one size fits all print sizes
> thing, it doesn't seem to work out that way. I'll say it again: YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]