Digital BW, The Print

I have come to the conclusion that when making a test print you have to take a section of an image and print it full size rather than re-sizing the whole image to make a small print.  This is the same as you would do in the darkroom assuming you did not want to compensate for enlarger height change.  My full image small test print comes out much darker than the final full size print.  A section of the full size image prints the same as the final ful size print.  I am using MIS-VM in an 1160 with Paul Roark's curves. 

Is this correct?

Bob

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

> From: bobphoto [mailto:bobphoto@...]
>
> I have come to the conclusion that when making a test print you
> have to take a section of an image and print it full size rather
> than re-sizing the whole image to make a small print.  This is
> the same as you would do in the darkroom assuming you did not
> want to compensate for enlarger height change.  My full image
> small test print comes out much darker than the final full size
> print.  A section of the full size image prints the same as the
> final ful size print.  I am using MIS-VM in an 1160 with Paul
> Roark's curves.
>
> Is this correct?

That sounds fishy to me. There may be some psychological effect at work, but
resizing an image shouldn't change the average brightness of it when
printed.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

It probably is psychological. I remember Adams talking about the optimal 
size for a print for impact - bigger is not always better. I think it 
has to do with viewing range - smaller prints are viewed closer and 
because of this they will have a different impact than if the same image 
is printed in a larger print. If you measure the difference on a sensor 
there may not be one but if you ask someone they will tell you there is.

Truman

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> > From: bobphoto [mailto:bobphoto@...]
> >
> > I have come to the conclusion that when making a test print you
> > have to take a section of an image and print it full size rather
> > than re-sizing the whole image to make a small print.  This is
> > the same as you would do in the darkroom assuming you did not
> > want to compensate for enlarger height change.  My full image
> > small test print comes out much darker than the final full size
> > print.  A section of the full size image prints the same as the
> > final ful size print.  I am using MIS-VM in an 1160 with Paul
> > Roark's curves.
> >
> > Is this correct?
>
> That sounds fishy to me. There may be some psychological effect at 
> work, but
> resizing an image shouldn't change the average brightness of it when
> printed.
>
> --
>
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>

-- 

We imitate our masters only because we are not yet masters ourselves, 
and only

because in doing so we learn the truth about what cannot be imitated.

 



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

Truman Prevatt wrote:

>It probably is psychological. I remember Adams talking about the optimal 
>size for a print for impact - bigger is not always better. I think it 
>has to do with viewing range - smaller prints are viewed closer and 
>because of this they will have a different impact than if the same image 
>is printed in a larger print. If you measure the difference on a sensor 
>there may not be one but if you ask someone they will tell you there is.
>  
>

Actually, it's perceptual (which makes it both psychological in the 
traditional sense and a physical perceptual effect).  This is a field of 
psychology my father helped lay out the bricks for in the 1960's.

It's like an adjacency effect of color.  In color perception, adjacent 
colors may skew our perception of those colors.  A simple example is 
that we use a neutral gray background and desktop when doing critical 
color work, knowing that the mind can be "fooled" by colors off from 
neutral.

Similarly, if you size down a a tonal range and compress it across a 2d 
space, certain tonal transitions will be harder to perceive.  Instead, 
the mind saves processing and interpolates.  Therefore, in many cases, 
perceived contrast of a smaller print of the same image will be higher 
(intermediate tones get winnowed out by the brain).   This is why 
studies of the discrete colors perceivable by the human mind/eye 
combination also generally use a published control of the distance over 
which the tonal variation occurs - different tonal changes are 
perceptible over different 2d distances at different viewer distances. 

The simple fact is that, like any processor and software, the capacity 
for the eye/mind to process data over a particular period of time is 
finite.  So, it sorts info into discrete chunks or steps for pre-processing.

In fact, it is these very underlying effects that make  the idea of 
photo-mosaics not just theoretically possible, but an interesting effect 
for illustration.

All that said, when making a larger print, you may find you want to 
increase the contrast to retain the same PERCEIVED contrast range IF you 
expect the viewing distance to be the same as it was for a smaller print 
of the same image. That's why SOMETIMES, simply reading the numbers from 
a densitometer, spectro, or in Photoshop's info window isn't enough.  
Some things about human perception remain subjective and non-formulaic.  
For those who always depend on such tools to pick a final print, this 
may be counter-intuitive, but art is inherently subjective anyway. 
Nothing ever substitutes for personal vision and real-world perception 
in the final analysis anyway.

Hope this helps.



 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"

I agree, there is some psycho-visual thing that if you listen to it tells
you when to stop going larger.

When I was using a wet dark room I rarely enlarged beyond 8 X 10 even using
4 X 5 negs. Going larger just seemed to lose something that a smaller
version obtain retained. With a digital set up I still rarely go beyond 11 X
14 and usually 8 X 10 or something less. I can also remember Fred Picker
saying that Edward Weston printed contact prints and didn't use an enlarger.
Not too shoddy work to try to use as a model...  The Brady photos of the War
of Northern Aggression can be stunning as are those of his disciples made
during their excursion into the west - all contact prints. Viewing distance
certainly seems to be part of the equation and being able to get your nose
into a print without being halfway across a hall seems important to many
images.

On the other hand I have seen a fair number of AA's prints made using his
railway car enlarger and who can fault the quality there?

Maybe "Chacon a son gout" still holds.

Roger

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Truman Prevatt [mailto:tprevatt@...]
  Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 6:05 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Image Density vs. Print Size


  It probably is psychological. I remember Adams talking about the optimal
  size for a print for impact - bigger is not always better. I think it
  has to do with viewing range - smaller prints are viewed closer and
  because of this they will have a different impact than if the same image
  is printed in a larger print. If you measure the difference on a sensor
  there may not be one but if you ask someone they will tell you there is.

  Truman



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

It's not just psychological. It's also physiological as well. Remember,
the human eye is adaptive. The iris is always on the move, adjusting the
amount of light it lets in, and therefore adjusting how bright the area
it is looking at appears.

Depending on the subject, a print can look quite different to a human
when printed small versus printed large, even if it objectively measures
the same "average brightness." It can look both darker and lighter
(depending on subject). It can look more contrasty or washed out
(depending on subject). 

I've got a room that is gray, part of a remodeling job (that got me a
darkroom!). When we got to time to pick colors, the designer sat with us
and we picked colors on paint chips. This gray room, I picked the color.
He asked if that was exactly what I wanted. When I said yes, it pointed
to the chip two levels up from that one and said, paint it that color
and you'll get what you want. I tried it - it's only paint. And he was
right. 

As a block of color takes up your whole field of view, your eye tries to
find a balance. It tries to make really dark colors appear lighter by
opening up the iris. It tries to make really light colors darker by
closing down the iris. The brain tries to compensate and keep the
balance that you "know" is right. 

What makes anyone think that doesn't hold true for photographs?

Don't even get me started on using unsharp masking for small and large
prints...



On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 19:51, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> That sounds fishy to me. There may be some psychological effect at work, but
> resizing an image shouldn't change the average brightness of it when
> printed.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...








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

Just one comment.  If it LOOKS different, is IS different.  So, compensate for the looks so that the different sizes look like what you want. It's all about looks.
 
Tom Baker 

hogarth <hogarth@...> wrote:
It's not just psychological. It's also physiological as well. Remember,
the human eye is adaptive. The iris is always on the move, adjusting the
amount of light it lets in, and therefore adjusting how bright the area
it is looking at appears.

Depending on the subject, a print can look quite different to a human
when printed small versus printed large, even if it objectively measures
the same "average brightness." It can look both darker and lighter
(depending on subject). It can look more contrasty or washed out
(depending on subject). 

I've got a room that is gray, part of a remodeling job (that got me a
darkroom!). When we got to time to pick colors, the designer sat with us
and we picked colors on paint chips. This gray room, I picked the color.
He asked if that was exactly what I wanted. When I said yes, it pointed
to the chip two levels up from that one and said, paint it that color
and you'll get what you want. I tried it - it's only paint. And he was
right. 

As a block of color takes up your whole field of view, your eye tries to
find a balance. It tries to make really dark colors appear lighter by
opening up the iris. It tries to make really light colors darker by
closing down the iris. The brain tries to compensate and keep the
balance that you "know" is right. 

What makes anyone think that doesn't hold true for photographs?

Don't even get me started on using unsharp masking for small and large
prints...



On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 19:51, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> That sounds fishy to me. There may be some psychological effect at work, but
> resizing an image shouldn't change the average brightness of it when
> printed.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...








[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

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

"bobphoto" wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that when making a test print you have to take a section 
of an image and print it full size rather than re-sizing the whole image to make a small 
print.  > Bob

I'm with Bob on this one! A few weeks ago I did a test print on my Epson 1200 loaded with 
Fotonics. I wanted to test the new Kodak Ultra paper. I resized an 8x10 image in 
Photoshop in the Print with Preview down to about 3x4 inches to place more than one 
image on the paper. The print came out with the black ink area area all crackled - looks 
like an orange skin -  and thought "crap this paper is not compatible with Fotonics". But 
decided to print a full size image and guess what? Made a fairly nice image and the black 
areas were not crackled or blocked - had full detail and smooth surface.

Could be sizing down image increases the resolution to the point where the printer/driver 
can not handle it.

John V.

> From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...]
>
> Just one comment.  If it LOOKS different, is IS different.  So,
> compensate for the looks so that the different sizes look like
> what you want. It's all about looks.

That's certainly true if your goal is to make small and large versions of
the same image, both for display. But if, as in the original post, you're
making a test image, you may be testing for things like the rendering of
shadow detail, in which case modifying the settings will invalidate your
test.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth
<hogarth@s...> wrote:

> Don't even get me started on using unsharp masking for small and large
> prints...

I agree with Sander.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on USM for small
vs. large prints.  I wrestle with that stuff every day......

Ol' Don in Broken Arrow

Very good comments! The real problem is that there doesn´t exist a 
perfect print with the only exeption that you see the print as a 
perfect print. 
Bernard von Foerster

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> Just one comment.  If it LOOKS different, is IS different.  So, 
compensate for the looks so that the different sizes look like what 
you want. It's all about looks.
>  
> Tom Baker 
> 
> hogarth <hogarth@s...> wrote:
> It's not just psychological. It's also physiological as well. 
Remember,
> the human eye is adaptive. The iris is always on the move, 
adjusting the
> amount of light it lets in, and therefore adjusting how bright the 
area
> it is looking at appears.
> 
> Depending on the subject, a print can look quite different to a 
human
> when printed small versus printed large, even if it objectively 
measures
> the same "average brightness." It can look both darker and lighter
> (depending on subject). It can look more contrasty or washed out
> (depending on subject). 
> 
> I've got a room that is gray, part of a remodeling job (that got 
me a
> darkroom!). When we got to time to pick colors, the designer sat 
with us
> and we picked colors on paint chips. This gray room, I picked the 
color.
> He asked if that was exactly what I wanted. When I said yes, it 
pointed
> to the chip two levels up from that one and said, paint it that 
color
> and you'll get what you want. I tried it - it's only paint. And he 
was
> right. 
> 
> As a block of color takes up your whole field of view, your eye 
tries to
> find a balance. It tries to make really dark colors appear lighter 
by
> opening up the iris. It tries to make really light colors darker by
> closing down the iris. The brain tries to compensate and keep the
> balance that you "know" is right. 
> 
> What makes anyone think that doesn't hold true for photographs?
> 
> Don't even get me started on using unsharp masking for small and 
large
> prints...
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2004-04-12 at 19:51, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
> 
> > That sounds fishy to me. There may be some psychological effect 
at work, but
> > resizing an image shouldn't change the average brightness of it 
when
> > printed.
> > 
> > --
> > 
> > Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> > Paul                mailto:pderocco@i...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [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
> 
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>   
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of 
Service. 

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

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.



On Tue, 2004-04-13 at 12:12, Don wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth
> <hogarth@s...> wrote:
> 
> > Don't even get me started on using unsharp masking for small and large
> > prints...
> 
> I agree with Sander.  I'd like to hear your thoughts on USM for small
> vs. large prints.  I wrestle with that stuff every day......
> 
> Ol' Don in Broken Arrow









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

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]

I use PhotoKit sharpner for my digital camera RGB files, but not for 
the 16 bit grayscale scans of my 4x5 negs.  Unfortunately, Photokit 
Sharpener will only work with RGB files and if I convert my 16 bit gray 
scans to 16 bit RGB things slow to a crawl when the layers start piling 
up and file size exceeds 1 gig.  I'm currently using Deadman's custom 
sharpen action (http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html) for the 16 bit 
gray scans so I don't have to convert to RGB and the results are as 
good as PhotoKit.

On Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 02:04  PM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Broadly consistent with the Photokit guys.  Capture sharpening, 
> Creative
> sharpening (if desired) and then Output Sharpening.
>
>
> From: hogarth <hogarth@snappydsl.net>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

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]

I use it and have found it to be very good.  Download the fully functional
demo and let us know what you think.  They certainly go through a
significant number of steps to perform a sharpen (well beyond a simple
unsharp mask).  And the creative brushes can be quite useful.  As Carl
notes, a 16bit files in RGB can get very very large ­ mine have hit over 2Gb
before being flattened and taken back to grey scale.  Personally I have
found it better at sharpening colour slide scans than scanned B&W film but
that maybe the scan rather than the sharpening process.

From: hogarth <hogarth@snappydsl.net>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:21:36 -0400
To: "digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com"
<digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Sharpening vs. Print size [was: Image Density vs.
Print Size]

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?





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

If you have a great greyscale scan, sharpen with PS, if it isn´t a 
great greyscale scan, throw it away therefor you do not have to 
sharpen it. Look at Unwerth´s photographs! She never knows anything 
about photography, but what crazy prints!!!
You know what I mean?
Bernard from Austria


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I use PhotoKit sharpner for my digital camera RGB files, but not 
for 
> the 16 bit grayscale scans of my 4x5 negs.  Unfortunately, 
Photokit 
> Sharpener will only work with RGB files and if I convert my 16 bit 
gray 
> scans to 16 bit RGB things slow to a crawl when the layers start 
piling 
> up and file size exceeds 1 gig.  I'm currently using Deadman's 
custom 
> sharpen action (http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html) for the 
16 bit 
> gray scans so I don't have to convert to RGB and the results are 
as 
> good as PhotoKit.
> 
> On Tuesday, April 13, 2004, at 02:04  PM, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> > Broadly consistent with the Photokit guys.  Capture sharpening, 
> > Creative
> > sharpening (if desired) and then Output Sharpening.
> >
> >
> > From: hogarth <hogarth@s...>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Ah hullo? No I don¹t.  I scan with an Imacon 848.  A great scan still
requires sharpening (as discussed earlier in this thread).  The question is:
what is the most intelligent means of sharpening and which tools have been
developed to make intelligent scanning easier and more efficient?

From: "photographyworks" <photographyworks@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:35:43 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Sharpening vs. Print size [was: Image Density vs.
Print Size]

If you have a great greyscale scan, sharpen with PS, if it isn´t a
great greyscale scan, throw it away therefor you do not have to
sharpen it. Look at Unwerth´s photographs! She never knows anything
about photography, but what crazy prints!!!
You know what I mean?
Bernard from Austria





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

i'm pretty new to digital darkroom stuff - i havent been paying much 
attention to sharpening, but decided to do some experimenting after 
reading this thread - one thing i'm finding is that on the printed 
sharpened image i get horizontal lines especially in the darker areas 
of the photo - (nothing like that on non-sharpened image) - now, these 
lines are not visible on the sharpened image on my monitor... - so, on 
the printed image, in the darker areas, the image seems to be made up 
of these lines ...

i'm not sure i've explained the above well...

but if someone understands what i'm talking about - is there a way to 
know how much to sharpen so that these lines don't appear on the 
printed image?

thanx

Altaf

On Apr 13, 2004, at 12:35 PM, photographyworks wrote:

> If you have a great greyscale scan, sharpen with PS, if it isn´t a
> great greyscale scan, throw it away therefor you do not have to
> sharpen it. Look at Unwerth´s photographs! She never knows anything
> about photography, but what crazy prints!!!
> You know what I mean?
> Bernard from Austria
>

Learning all the techniques available to you for applying a 
sharpening effect to your images in Photoshop and applying the most 
appropriate one for the image at hand is the most intelligent means 
of sharpening.  Spend some time exploring the internet, there are 
many great tutorials.  Sharpening is an illusion and not a science.  
I am convinced that you have to make the choices yourself... there is 
no "big button" that will do it *right* everytime.  Vuescan is the 
defacto standard for scanning... it is an all around ok package.

mark

...
> what is the most intelligent means of sharpening and which tools 
have been
> developed to make intelligent scanning easier and more efficient?
...

This is not a sharpening problem, It seem that you see banding of 
your machine. What kind of machine and ink?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, altaf bhimji 
<altaf@p...> wrote:
> 
> i'm pretty new to digital darkroom stuff - i havent been paying 
much 
> attention to sharpening, but decided to do some experimenting 
after 
> reading this thread - one thing i'm finding is that on the printed 
> sharpened image i get horizontal lines especially in the darker 
areas 
> of the photo - (nothing like that on non-sharpened image) - now, 
these 
> lines are not visible on the sharpened image on my monitor... - 
so, on 
> the printed image, in the darker areas, the image seems to be made 
up 
> of these lines ...
> 
> i'm not sure i've explained the above well...
> 
> but if someone understands what i'm talking about - is there a way 
to 
> know how much to sharpen so that these lines don't appear on the 
> printed image?
> 
> thanx
> 
> Altaf
> 
> On Apr 13, 2004, at 12:35 PM, photographyworks wrote:
> 
> > If you have a great greyscale scan, sharpen with PS, if it isn´t 
a
> > great greyscale scan, throw it away therefor you do not have to
> > sharpen it. Look at Unwerth´s photographs! She never knows 
anything

> > about photography, but what crazy prints!!!
> > You know what I mean?
> > Bernard from Austria
> >

epson 1280 and UT2 - but why would i see it only on the sharpened image, and 
not on the unsharpened one? 

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:47:16 -0000, photographyworks wrote

> This is not a sharpening problem, It seem that you see banding of 
> your machine. What kind of machine and ink?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, altaf bhimji 
> <altaf@p...> wrote:
> > 
> > i'm pretty new to digital darkroom stuff - i havent been paying 
> much 
>

Where did you get a version of PhotoKit that works in 16 bit? Mine 
will only work on 8 Bit??????

thanks,

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield 
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I use PhotoKit sharpner for my digital camera RGB files, but not 
for 
> the 16 bit grayscale scans of my 4x5 negs.  Unfortunately, Photokit 
> Sharpener will only work with RGB files and if I convert my 16 bit 
gray 
> scans to 16 bit RGB things slow to a crawl when the layers start 
piling 
> up and file size exceeds 1 gig.  I'm currently using Deadman's 
custom 
> sharpen action (http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html) for the 16 
bit 

> gray scans so I don't have to convert to RGB and the results are as 
> good as PhotoKit.
>

The latest version is 16 bit capable, but I believe only with Photoshop  
CS (8).

Carl

On Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 12:37  PM, Tom OConnell wrote:

> Where did you get a version of PhotoKit that works in 16 bit? Mine
> will only work on 8 Bit??????
>
> thanks,
>
> Tom O'Connell
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <scho@m...> wrote:
>> I use PhotoKit sharpner for my digital camera RGB files, but not
> for
>> the 16 bit grayscale scans of my 4x5 negs.  Unfortunately, Photokit
>> Sharpener will only work with RGB files and if I convert my 16 bit
> gray
>> scans to 16 bit RGB things slow to a crawl when the layers start
> piling
>> up and file size exceeds 1 gig.  I'm currently using Deadman's
> custom
>> sharpen action (http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html) for the 16
> bit
>> gray scans so I don't have to convert to RGB and the results are as
>> good as PhotoKit.
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com.  Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &  
> Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>

They have upgraded it to 16 bit ­ see their website

From: "Tom OConnell" <tomoc@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:37:53 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Sharpening vs. Print size [was: Image Density vs.
Print Size]

Where did you get a version of PhotoKit that works in 16 bit? Mine
will only work on 8 Bit??????

thanks,

Tom O'Connell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<scho@m...> wrote:
> I use PhotoKit sharpner for my digital camera RGB files, but not
for 
> the 16 bit grayscale scans of my 4x5 negs.  Unfortunately, Photokit
> Sharpener will only work with RGB files and if I convert my 16 bit
gray 
> scans to 16 bit RGB things slow to a crawl when the layers start
piling 
> up and file size exceeds 1 gig.  I'm currently using Deadman's
custom 
> sharpen action (http://www.pinkheadedbug.com/links.html) for the 16
bit 
> gray scans so I don't have to convert to RGB and the results are as
> good as PhotoKit.
> 




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
* To visit your group on the web, go to:
* http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
*  
* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
* DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe> 
*  
* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




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