Digital BW, The Print

I have wondered this question for years, and have never asked it:

If you start with a big scan for print, say, 20"x20" at about 240dpi, 
and then you wanna rez that down for display on the web, say 
about 600pix by 600pix at 72dpi, and you do, in one fell swoop, 
the image becomes very fuzzy. If you USM it at about 75 or 100%, 
it helps, but still doesn't look great.

Does anyone know why it gets fuzzy? And does anyone know a 
great technique to preserve sharpness and detail when 
prepping for the web, from an archive scan?

Thanks. Mark Tucker

Hi Mark,

The best way I have found for downsizing large image files for low res usage
is to downsize in increments of 50%.  I do this in image size, using the
pixel dimensions, choose 50 and then Percent from the pull down menu rather
than pixels.

Keep reducing by 50% until you come near your final image size, then
resample using your pixel dimensions until you have the required web size.
Don't worry about actual dpi numbers as they are irrelevant once you set
your pixel dimensions.

The reason large image files reduce to blurry files if you reduce in one
fell swoop is that Photoshop is throwing away so much info at once and  it
is not smart enough to throw away the right info...  IMO

If required I usually use USM set at 60% and .2 to .8 with no threshold.

Carolyn

> 
> I have wondered this question for years, and have never asked it:
> 
> If you start with a big scan for print, say, 20"x20" at about 240dpi,
> and then you wanna rez that down for display on the web, say
> about 600pix by 600pix at 72dpi, and you do, in one fell swoop,
> the image becomes very fuzzy. If you USM it at about 75 or 100%,
> it helps, but still doesn't look great.
> 
> Does anyone know why it gets fuzzy? And does anyone know a
> great technique to preserve sharpness and detail when
> prepping for the web, from an archive scan?
> 
> Thanks. Mark Tucker

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Carolyn  Frayn 
<carolyn@u...> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> The best way I have found for downsizing large image files for 
low res usage
> is to downsize in increments of 50%. 

Carolyn,

Thanks for the response. I was beginning to think that no one 
would answer, if the post didn't contain some reference to Art or 
Life. Now that I'm thinking about that topic, this came from a sick 
friend a few days ago. With all this Serrano talk, maybe this is 
appropriate. I'll bet your boys would LOVE this:

--------------------------

People who nurse the desire to examine 78 different kinds of 
poop can now do so in Japan, where an animal and human 
excrement display is being shown at the Tokyo Science 
Museum. The exhibit -- titled "All the Poop" -- arrived in Tokyo last 
month from Osaka. The organisers say they want children to 
learn about health and the environment by seeing fossils and 
dried dung heaps. Visitors learn that a hyena's droppings are 
slightly white because they eat bones. Koala poop smells good 
because they eat eucalyptus leaves.

Museum visits are incomplete without souvenirs, and this one 
won't disappoint. Big sellers in the museum shop include 
moose-dropping key chains, wrapping paper made of recycled 
elephant dung, and postcards of animals "pooping".

http://www.newscientist.com/opinion/opfeedback.jsp?id=ns2314
99
-------------------------------------------

Or use Genuine Fractals...which does a great job with this.  When using
Genuine Fractals, always sharpen after you have made the final image (for
the web or from print) with Genuine Fractals...never sharpen before saving
the STN file.  Remember that sharpening should always be dependent on the
size and resolution of the final displayed image.  Nik Sharpener Pro figures
all of this out for you if you don't want to mess with special actions or
unsharp masking.

Robert

On 10/30/01 5:46 PM, "Carolyn Frayn" <carolyn@...> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> The best way I have found for downsizing large image files for low res usage
> is to downsize in increments of 50%.  I do this in image size, using the
> pixel dimensions, choose 50 and then Percent from the pull down menu rather
> than pixels.
> 
> Keep reducing by 50% until you come near your final image size, then
> resample using your pixel dimensions until you have the required web size.
> Don't worry about actual dpi numbers as they are irrelevant once you set
> your pixel dimensions.
> 
> The reason large image files reduce to blurry files if you reduce in one
> fell swoop is that Photoshop is throwing away so much info at once and  it
> is not smart enough to throw away the right info...  IMO
> 
> If required I usually use USM set at 60% and .2 to .8 with no threshold.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> 
>> 
>> I have wondered this question for years, and have never asked it:
>> 
>> If you start with a big scan for print, say, 20"x20" at about 240dpi,
>> and then you wanna rez that down for display on the web, say
>> about 600pix by 600pix at 72dpi, and you do, in one fell swoop,
>> the image becomes very fuzzy. If you USM it at about 75 or 100%,
>> it helps, but still doesn't look great.
>> 
>> Does anyone know why it gets fuzzy? And does anyone know a
>> great technique to preserve sharpness and detail when
>> prepping for the web, from an archive scan?
>> 
>> Thanks. Mark Tucker
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Mark... Thanks for the info about the poop exhibit, what a hoot!  Now I know
what I can do with all those zoo photos I felt compelled to take... Poop
Postcards!  My youngest would like to see the exhibit, my Middle said he was
"outta here" when I got to the part about the mouse dropping key chains. My
Oldest listened intently and then told me about the kitten in a bottle art
that has upset him and his friends.

I'm thinking I should trade in the dog for a Koala... might make for a
sweeter spring clean up. ;-)

> Carolyn,
> 
> Thanks for the response. I was beginning to think that no one
> would answer, if the post didn't contain some reference to Art or
> Life. Now that I'm thinking about that topic, this came from a sick
> friend a few days ago. With all this Serrano talk, maybe this is
> appropriate. I'll bet your boys would LOVE this:

Robert, 

How do you use genuine fractals if you know you will be making many
different sized prints? Can't you just make one master file, save it,
and print it at any size? 

If not, what is the proper order to sharpen files that you know will be
printed at sizes from 5 inches wide to 24 inches wide, and many sizes inbetween?

Thanks,

Jerry

My Genuine Fractals program will be here in a today, so am curious as
how this works.




Robert Morrison wrote:

> 
> Or use Genuine Fractals...which does a great job with this.  When using
> Genuine Fractals, always sharpen after you have made the final image (for
> the web or from print) with Genuine Fractals...never sharpen before saving
> the STN file.  Remember that sharpening should always be dependent on the
> size and resolution of the final displayed image.  Nik Sharpener Pro figures
> all of this out for you if you don't want to mess with special actions or
> unsharp masking.
> 
> Robert
> 
> On 10/30/01 5:46 PM, "Carolyn Frayn" <carolyn@...> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > The best way I have found for downsizing large image files for low res usage
> > is to downsize in increments of 50%.  I do this in image size, using the
> > pixel dimensions, choose 50 and then Percent from the pull down menu rather
> > than pixels.
> >
> > Keep reducing by 50% until you come near your final image size, then
> > resample using your pixel dimensions until you have the required web size.
> > Don't worry about actual dpi numbers as they are irrelevant once you set
> > your pixel dimensions.
> >
> > The reason large image files reduce to blurry files if you reduce in one
> > fell swoop is that Photoshop is throwing away so much info at once and  it
> > is not smart enough to throw away the right info...  IMO
> >
> > If required I usually use USM set at 60% and .2 to .8 with no threshold.
> >
> > Carolyn
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I have wondered this question for years, and have never asked it:
> >>
> >> If you start with a big scan for print, say, 20"x20" at about 240dpi,
> >> and then you wanna rez that down for display on the web, say
> >> about 600pix by 600pix at 72dpi, and you do, in one fell swoop,
> >> the image becomes very fuzzy. If you USM it at about 75 or 100%,
> >> it helps, but still doesn't look great.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know why it gets fuzzy? And does anyone know a
> >> great technique to preserve sharpness and detail when
> >> prepping for the web, from an archive scan?
> >>
> >> Thanks. Mark Tucker
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> > resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> 
> ----------------------
> Robert Morrison
> rmorrison@...
> 
> 310-397-2704
> 
> 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
> Los Angeles, CA 90066
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Jerry,
I use GF differently to Robert. I spot and sharpen using Ultra Sharpen 3 and
then save as an .stn file. If I'm scanning 1600dpi 6x6 neg, that is what I
save as. from this, say i want a 7inch sq print. I type in 490dpi in the
output size box. GF automatically resizes the print and then I get my 7inch
print. I may be doing this wrong, but I can't see the difference from doing
it the other way. I've tried it - but can't see it.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Sharpening/downsizing for web?


> Robert,
>
> How do you use genuine fractals if you know you will be making many
> different sized prints? Can't you just make one master file, save it,
> and print it at any size?
>
> If not, what is the proper order to sharpen files that you know will be
> printed at sizes from 5 inches wide to 24 inches wide, and many sizes
inbetween?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jerry
>
> My Genuine Fractals program will be here in a today, so am curious as
> how this works.
>
>
>
>
> Robert Morrison wrote:
> >
> > Or use Genuine Fractals...which does a great job with this.  When using
> > Genuine Fractals, always sharpen after you have made the final image
(for
> > the web or from print) with Genuine Fractals...never sharpen before
saving
> > the STN file.  Remember that sharpening should always be dependent on
the
> > size and resolution of the final displayed image.  Nik Sharpener Pro
figures
> > all of this out for you if you don't want to mess with special actions
or
> > unsharp masking.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > On 10/30/01 5:46 PM, "Carolyn Frayn" <carolyn@...> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > The best way I have found for downsizing large image files for low res
usage
> > > is to downsize in increments of 50%.  I do this in image size, using
the
> > > pixel dimensions, choose 50 and then Percent from the pull down menu
rather
> > > than pixels.
> > >
> > > Keep reducing by 50% until you come near your final image size, then
> > > resample using your pixel dimensions until you have the required web
size.
> > > Don't worry about actual dpi numbers as they are irrelevant once you
set
> > > your pixel dimensions.
> > >
> > > The reason large image files reduce to blurry files if you reduce in
one
> > > fell swoop is that Photoshop is throwing away so much info at once and
it
> > > is not smart enough to throw away the right info...  IMO
> > >
> > > If required I usually use USM set at 60% and .2 to .8 with no
threshold.
> > >
> > > Carolyn
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> I have wondered this question for years, and have never asked it:
> > >>
> > >> If you start with a big scan for print, say, 20"x20" at about 240dpi,
> > >> and then you wanna rez that down for display on the web, say
> > >> about 600pix by 600pix at 72dpi, and you do, in one fell swoop,
> > >> the image becomes very fuzzy. If you USM it at about 75 or 100%,
> > >> it helps, but still doesn't look great.
> > >>
> > >> Does anyone know why it gets fuzzy? And does anyone know a
> > >> great technique to preserve sharpness and detail when
> > >> prepping for the web, from an archive scan?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks. Mark Tucker
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and other
> > > resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > - Include your full name with your message.
> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep
> > > them short.
> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
> > > resources on the homepage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Robert Morrison
> > rmorrison@...
> >
> > 310-397-2704
> >
> > 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
> > Los Angeles, CA 90066
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Jerry,

You save a master from your original file in the genuine fractals format,
then when you open the master the GF plug in asks you to  choose what size
and resolution you want it opened at, once open you then sharpen it for your
choosen output.  The master is always available for your next job, next
output...

I just find it a pain to do this if you are just making a web image from an
archival source that is not already in the .stn format.  I don't use GF
often, only for upsizing when necessary.

Carolyn

> How do you use genuine fractals if you know you will be making many
> different sized prints? Can't you just make one master file, save it,
> and print it at any size?
> 
> If not, what is the proper order to sharpen files that you know will be
> printed at sizes from 5 inches wide to 24 inches wide, and many sizes
> inbetween?

Genuine Fractals states in their documentation that their algorithm works
best with unsharpened images.  That's why I use the work flow that I do.

Robert

On 10/31/01 5:29 PM, "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...> wrote:

> Jerry,
> I use GF differently to Robert. I spot and sharpen using Ultra Sharpen 3 and
> then save as an .stn file. If I'm scanning 1600dpi 6x6 neg, that is what I
> save as. from this, say i want a 7inch sq print. I type in 490dpi in the
> output size box. GF automatically resizes the print and then I get my 7inch
> print. I may be doing this wrong, but I can't see the difference from doing
> it the other way. I've tried it - but can't see it.
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 6:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Sharpening/downsizing for web?
> 
> 
>> Robert,
>> 
>> How do you use genuine fractals if you know you will be making many
>> different sized prints? Can't you just make one master file, save it,
>> and print it at any size?
>> 
>> If not, what is the proper order to sharpen files that you know will be
>> printed at sizes from 5 inches wide to 24 inches wide, and many sizes
> inbetween?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Jerry
>> 
>> My Genuine Fractals program will be here in a today, so am curious as
>> how this works.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Robert Morrison wrote:
>>> 
>>> Or use Genuine Fractals...which does a great job with this.  When using
>>> Genuine Fractals, always sharpen after you have made the final image
> (for
>>> the web or from print) with Genuine Fractals...never sharpen before
> saving
>>> the STN file.  Remember that sharpening should always be dependent on
> the
>>> size and resolution of the final displayed image.  Nik Sharpener Pro
> figures
>>> all of this out for you if you don't want to mess with special actions
> or
>>> unsharp masking.
>>> 
>>> Robert
>>> 
>>> On 10/30/01 5:46 PM, "Carolyn Frayn" <carolyn@...> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Mark,
>>>> 
>>>> The best way I have found for downsizing large image files for low res
> usage
>>>> is to downsize in increments of 50%.  I do this in image size, using
> the
>>>> pixel dimensions, choose 50 and then Percent from the pull down menu
> rather
>>>> than pixels.
>>>> 
>>>> Keep reducing by 50% until you come near your final image size, then
>>>> resample using your pixel dimensions until you have the required web
> size.
>>>> Don't worry about actual dpi numbers as they are irrelevant once you
> set
>>>> your pixel dimensions.
>>>> 
>>>> The reason large image files reduce to blurry files if you reduce in
> one
>>>> fell swoop is that Photoshop is throwing away so much info at once and
> it
>>>> is not smart enough to throw away the right info...  IMO
>>>> 
>>>> If required I usually use USM set at 60% and .2 to .8 with no
> threshold.
>>>> 
>>>> Carolyn
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have wondered this question for years, and have never asked it:
>>>>> 
>>>>> If you start with a big scan for print, say, 20"x20" at about 240dpi,
>>>>> and then you wanna rez that down for display on the web, say
>>>>> about 600pix by 600pix at 72dpi, and you do, in one fell swoop,
>>>>> the image becomes very fuzzy. If you USM it at about 75 or 100%,
>>>>> it helps, but still doesn't look great.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Does anyone know why it gets fuzzy? And does anyone know a
>>>>> great technique to preserve sharpness and detail when
>>>>> prepping for the web, from an archive scan?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks. Mark Tucker
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> and other
>>>> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>>> 
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>>> 
>>>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>>> - Include your full name with your message.
>>>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep
>>>> them short.
>>>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
>>>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
>>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
>>>> resources on the homepage.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------
>>> Robert Morrison
>>> rmorrison@...
>>> 
>>> 310-397-2704
>>> 
>>> 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
>>> Los Angeles, CA 90066
>>> 
>>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>>> 
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>> 
>>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>> - Include your full name with your message.
>>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
>>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
>>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
>>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>> 
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>> 
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - Include your full name with your message.
>> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
>> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
>> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Exactly.  I use GF for all my fine art images.  Its rather wasteful, but I
archive a 16bit NEF image, then I edit in 16 bit and save in GF at 8
bit...open at any size and sharpen. I wish that they would offer a way to
save 16 bit files in the future so that I don't have to reduce to 8 bit.
Ditto for Nik Sharpener Pro.  GF seems to work better for me than
traditional sampling techniques with my grainless digital images.  When
scanning film I seemed to get identical results...just used GF because it
was flexible and really easy.

Robert

Particularly now that the On 10/31/01 5:30 PM, "Carolyn Frayn"
<carolyn@...> wrote:

> You save a master from your original file in the genuine fractals format,
> then when you open the master the GF plug in asks you to  choose what size
> and resolution you want it opened at, once open you then sharpen it for your
> choosen output.  The master is always available for your next job, next
> output...

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

I wonder if the next update will include 16 bit images?  Someone said
that you couldn't get a picture icon with Genuine fractals. Is this true?

Couldn't you just copy a low res image and paste it in the Get Info box?
(replacing the stn. icon image) That should place a picture icon on the
stn. image on the desktop, no?

Jerry





"Robert G. Morrison" wrote:

> 
> Exactly.  I use GF for all my fine art images.  Its rather wasteful, but I
> archive a 16bit NEF image, then I edit in 16 bit and save in GF at 8
> bit...open at any size and sharpen. I wish that they would offer a way to
> save 16 bit files in the future so that I don't have to reduce to 8 bit.
> Ditto for Nik Sharpener Pro.  GF seems to work better for me than
> traditional sampling techniques with my grainless digital images.  When
> scanning film I seemed to get identical results...just used GF because it
> was flexible and really easy.
> 
> Robert
> 
> Particularly now that the On 10/31/01 5:30 PM, "Carolyn Frayn"
> <carolyn@...> wrote:
> 
> > You save a master from your original file in the genuine fractals format,
> > then when you open the master the GF plug in asks you to  choose what size
> > and resolution you want it opened at, once open you then sharpen it for your
> > choosen output.  The master is always available for your next job, next
> > output...
> 
> ----------------------
> Robert Morrison
> rmorrison@...
> 
> 310-397-2704
> 
> 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
> Los Angeles, CA 90066
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

It is a bit wasteful, but I save a jpg as well as the stn file - they have
th esame name but a different extension. I then use Thumbsplus to database
my files.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Sharpening/downsizing for web?


> I wonder if the next update will include 16 bit images?  Someone said
> that you couldn't get a picture icon with Genuine fractals. Is this true?
>
> Couldn't you just copy a low res image and paste it in the Get Info box?
> (replacing the stn. icon image) That should place a picture icon on the
> stn. image on the desktop, no?
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
> "Robert G. Morrison" wrote:
> >
> > Exactly.  I use GF for all my fine art images.  Its rather wasteful, but
I
> > archive a 16bit NEF image, then I edit in 16 bit and save in GF at 8
> > bit...open at any size and sharpen. I wish that they would offer a way
to
> > save 16 bit files in the future so that I don't have to reduce to 8 bit.
> > Ditto for Nik Sharpener Pro.  GF seems to work better for me than
> > traditional sampling techniques with my grainless digital images.  When
> > scanning film I seemed to get identical results...just used GF because
it
> > was flexible and really easy.
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > Particularly now that the On 10/31/01 5:30 PM, "Carolyn Frayn"
> > <carolyn@...> wrote:
> >
> > > You save a master from your original file in the genuine fractals
format,
> > > then when you open the master the GF plug in asks you to  choose what
size
> > > and resolution you want it opened at, once open you then sharpen it
for your
> > > choosen output.  The master is always available for your next job,
next
> > > output...
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Robert Morrison
> > rmorrison@...
> >
> > 310-397-2704
> >
> > 4131 Bledsoe Ave.
> > Los Angeles, CA 90066
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

This hasn't been mentioned, but you might also set your image in PS to
fill the screen and take a screenshot or use a screen grab program
instead of downsizing the original. Then adjust sharpness in Pshop.
Works great over here. Also, save for web command in Pshop 6 works well.

MZ

o

> How do you use genuine fractals if you know you will be making many
> different sized prints? Can't you just make one master file, save it,
> and print it at any size?
> 
> If not, what is the proper order to sharpen files that you know will be
> printed at sizes from 5 inches wide to 24 inches wide, and many sizes
> inbetween?


I don't use GF so this point is outside of that particular discussion (BTW,
does GF support layers?), I'm discussing sharpening for different output
sizes.

I dupe my background layer and sharpen my duped layer to the largest extent
I'd need , then just decrease the opacity of the sharpened layer to be
appropriate for smaller sizes. It works well for me as I don't resample my
file for smaller print sizes, I just send it all along to the print driver,
which has no problem processing it. Thus scan once, manipulate once, sharpen
once, print many sizes...

Todd

PS, I'm getting good sharpening results using some of Johnny Deadman's
"smart sharpener" actions. They're free and very effective. I don't have a
link handy but I'd check his site (pinkheadedbug.com) or do a web search.
Most of these sharpeners (he offers a few, are based upon sharpening edges
to a greater extent than flat tones, much like Bruce Fraser's two pass
approach, or UltraSharpen.

Todd wrote:
> I dupe my background layer and sharpen my duped layer to the largest extent
> I'd need , then just decrease the opacity of the sharpened layer to be
> appropriate for smaller sizes. It works well for me as I don't resample my
> file for smaller print sizes, I just send it all along to the print driver,
> which has no problem processing it. Thus scan once, manipulate once, sharpen
> once, print many sizes...

Todd, interesting idea... I do a similiar thing to a duplicate layer in
order to sharpen selected areas of the underlying image layer by masking the
sharpened layer where required and then playing with the opacity.

You are sending the same file size to the printer at different print
sizes... what is the dpi of your smaller print file sizes? Do you ever find
anything unfavorable in your smaller images?  I've always thought that if
you send to much info to the print driver it does not handle the
downsampling as well as photoshop would.

> PS, I'm getting good sharpening results using some of Johnny Deadman's
> "smart sharpener" actions. They're free and very effective. I don't have a
> link handy but I'd check his site (pinkheadedbug.com) or do a web search.
> Most of these sharpeners (he offers a few, are based upon sharpening edges
> to a greater extent than flat tones, much like Bruce Fraser's two pass
> approach, or UltraSharpen.

Deke McClelland also has an edge mask technique that I find works well with
some images.  

I also really like the highpass sharpening technique only I use soft light
as the blend mode as it is much more subtle. John Brownlow's (Deadman) Smart
Sharpening is also great... each image warrants it's own technique. Both of
the above are available on the Luminous-Landscape site.

Carolyn

on 11/1/01 11:13 AM, Carolyn  Frayn wrote:

> Todd wrote:
>> I dupe my background layer and sharpen my duped layer to the largest extent
>> I'd need , then just decrease the opacity of the sharpened layer to be
>> appropriate for smaller sizes. It works well for me as I don't resample my
>> file for smaller print sizes, I just send it all along to the print driver,
>> which has no problem processing it. Thus scan once, manipulate once, sharpen
>> once, print many sizes...
> 
> Todd, interesting idea... I do a similiar thing to a duplicate layer in
> order to sharpen selected areas of the underlying image layer by masking the
> sharpened layer where required and then playing with the opacity.
 
Right - Me too - Gotta love them layer masks! The other thing one can do
when they have the duped layer is use the blending sliders for the layer in
the layers options dialog box. I'm not as comfortable working with them as
I'd like to be, but that's handy way to "mask" by luminosity. I just don't
feel I can see what I'm doing as well with that approach. How 'bout you?

Plus, I just like leaving my background layer unscathed incase I change my
mind about things later. I'm very fickle you know - Hate to commit. ;-)

> You are sending the same file size to the printer at different print
> sizes... what is the dpi of your smaller print file sizes? Do you ever find
> anything unfavorable in your smaller images?  I've always thought that if
> you send to much info to the print driver it does not handle the
> downsampling as well as photoshop would.

I'm generally working med format negs (6x6) scanned at 2540 dpi, so my pixel
dimensions are around 5700x5700. What I'll sometimes do while working an
image is test print it at 5x5" so I can put get two tests on an 8.5x11 page.
At that size the file is around 1150 DPI. My largest print size
(unfortunately) is 12" square, which is at about 480 DPI. All I can say is
to me they both look good. The size differential makes it hard to do any
qualitative comparison, I'm just pleased with both. I'm looking forward to
the day I can print 24x24" at 240 DPI. ;-)

Anyway, I've never really downsized in PS to compare with sending it all to
the driver. I should, but really the small sizes are primarily for proofing
purposes anyway.
 
> Deke McClelland also has an edge mask technique that I find works well with
> some images.  

I couldn't find Deke's technique on Luminous-Landscape. I like Deke, I've
learned a lot from his Total Training video series. Is this masking
technique the one where he uses HighPass to accentuate the edges? Does he
then run USM through the mask?

Thanks
Todd

Todd wrote: 
> Right - Me too - Gotta love them layer masks! The other thing one can do
> when they have the duped layer is use the blending sliders for the layer in
> the layers options dialog box. I'm not as comfortable working with them as
> I'd like to be, but that's handy way to "mask" by luminosity. I just don't
> feel I can see what I'm doing as well with that approach. How 'bout you?

If I'm blending a duplicate layer with a slight adjustment to it I agree, I
do not particularily like using the blending sliders, no matter the blending
mode. They do offer you a smoother transition in tonal blends if you option
click the slider to halve it and separate the halves to your liking. But, I
still find that the blend is choppy. I much prefer to blend using a layer
mask and paint away with a sublte touch.

On the other hand, for my photo-illustrations the sliders in the blending
box are ideal for layering line art or logos into the design. You can knock
out any little thing you don't want on there... with great control.


> Plus, I just like leaving my background layer unscathed incase I change my
> mind about things later. I'm very fickle you know - Hate to commit. ;-)

This is smart, but I don't worry about my background layer as I keep all
master scans, I also keep all edits along the way so that if I'm terribly
disappointed in a print I can go back to the file before I had made the
problem. You just keep in all in one file... cool. My flow is habit from
larger file sizes where I just could *not* keep all originals in the file
along with the work in progress. Some of my files are over 1 GIG and 80
layers.   You're not fickle, you're creative... oh, er, yeah ok, fickle. ;-)

> I'm generally working med format negs (6x6) scanned at 2540 dpi, so my pixel
> dimensions are around 5700x5700. What I'll sometimes do while working an
> image is test print it at 5x5" so I can put get two tests on an 8.5x11 page.
> At that size the file is around 1150 DPI. My largest print size
> (unfortunately) is 12" square, which is at about 480 DPI. All I can say is
> to me they both look good. The size differential makes it hard to do any
> qualitative comparison, I'm just pleased with both. I'm looking forward to
> the day I can print 24x24" at 240 DPI. ;-)
> 
> Anyway, I've never really downsized in PS to compare with sending it all to
> the driver. I should, but really the small sizes are primarily for proofing
> purposes anyway.

Makes sense... Have you tried a larger print... 20.4 x 20.4 at 280 dpi??
Sometimes that lower dpi can surprise you.  Or download the trial version of
GF which allows a full use demo for a few uses and upsample your image a few
percentage points... nothing major but then print it at the larger size at
your preferred dpi and see what you think.  If you've done all this just
tell me to mmob... ;-)
> 
>> Deke McClelland also has an edge mask technique that I find works well with
>> some images.  
> 
> I couldn't find Deke's technique on Luminous-Landscape. I like Deke, I've
> learned a lot from his Total Training video series. Is this masking
> technique the one where he uses HighPass to accentuate the edges? Does he
> then run USM through the mask?

Sorry, my writing skills again... Two of the sharpening techniques I
mentioned are on the Luminous site, Deke's sharpening technique was in the
latest issue of "Photoshop User magazine" ...  The article was taken from
his book "Look and Learn Photoshop 6".  I like him too, I learned a lot from
his "bibles"...

Carolyn

on 11/1/01 11:13 AM, Carolyn  Frayn wrote:

> I do a similiar thing to a duplicate layer in
> order to sharpen selected areas of the underlying image layer by masking the
> sharpened layer where required and then playing with the opacity.


Carolyn,

Getting back to our conversation a couple of weeks ago...

Remember I was speaking well of some of Deadman's "smart" sharpeners, and
you were speaking wisely of using layer masks. I've come to implement the
two in conjunction with each other in a way I'm quite happy with.

What I do is start with John's SuperSharpener action, and use it to make an
edge mask, but just after the 2nd levels adjustment on the mask I inserted a
stop in the action. At this point I've the beginnings of a nice mask loaded
as an alpha channel, and the action has stopped running. I can then paint on
the mask, or manipulate it anyway I see fit, and resume the action at that
point to apply the sharpening through a perfected mask, OR, what I prefer is
to not resume the action. I make my dupe layer, run USM on the entirety of
the layer, and load that mask as my layer mask.

It's the best of both worlds in that the mask making is somewhat automated
(or at least actioned), and the mask itself is infinitely more manipulable
and controllable.

JB, if you are reading this, I highly recommend this is how you implement
the action in the future. Too many times I ran it and then found out that an
area was not affected that I wished was, or vice versa, and had to start
from scratch. With this approach you just paint/blur/change opacity/etc.,
your layer mask until you are happy. And all the while you can see it's
effect on sharpening as you work. Add in that you can just alter the layer's
opacity to tailor the effect for different sizes/outputs, and.....
fuggedabouddit - it's the best.

Todd

Todd,

Now that I have finally been playing with the *right* action set I'd like to
reply...

I like your ideas. I like the second one where you dupe the layer, but I
load the mask first, apply to the dupe, then run USM so that I can watch the
effects while in the USM dialogue box.

I did this when using masks for dup's while using USM before ever thinking
of finding edges to start off the mask... stupid me. I would spend a long
time painting the mask to the edges, feathering the transition of course
with a soft brush... thanks again John for a better way! Takes a smart
person to make things easier.  Have you ever used "command option tilde" for
a mask, then invert/paint/blurr that?

I find in the first levels command (in John's SuperSharpener) I can get rid
of most of the areas I don't want sharpened, then use your technique to
paint out what I could not effect... without effecting the edges I wanted to
keep... oh boy, hope that made some sense.

Yes, it's all good stuff eh!?
Carolyn

> Getting back to our conversation a couple of weeks ago...
> 
> Remember I was speaking well of some of Deadman's "smart" sharpeners, and
> you were speaking wisely of using layer masks. I've come to implement the
> two in conjunction with each other in a way I'm quite happy with.
> 
> What I do is start with John's SuperSharpener action, and use it to make an
> edge mask, but just after the 2nd levels adjustment on the mask I inserted a
> stop in the action. At this point I've the beginnings of a nice mask loaded
> as an alpha channel, and the action has stopped running. I can then paint on
> the mask, or manipulate it anyway I see fit, and resume the action at that
> point to apply the sharpening through a perfected mask, OR, what I prefer is
> to not resume the action. I make my dupe layer, run USM on the entirety of
> the layer, and load that mask as my layer mask.
> 
> It's the best of both worlds in that the mask making is somewhat automated
> (or at least actioned), and the mask itself is infinitely more manipulable
> and controllable.
> 
> JB, if you are reading this, I highly recommend this is how you implement
> the action in the future. Too many times I ran it and then found out that an
> area was not affected that I wished was, or vice versa, and had to start
> from scratch. With this approach you just paint/blur/change opacity/etc.,
> your layer mask until you are happy. And all the while you can see it's
> effect on sharpening as you work. Add in that you can just alter the layer's
> opacity to tailor the effect for different sizes/outputs, and.....
> fuggedabouddit - it's the best.

Hi Carolyn

Sorry for the delayed response, the holiday was busy for me.

> Todd,
> 
> Now that I have finally been playing with the *right* action set I'd like to
> reply...
> 
> I like your ideas. I like the second one where you dupe the layer, but I
> load the mask first, apply to the dupe, then run USM so that I can watch the
> effects while in the USM dialogue box.

My only qualm with that approach is that your effect is fixed by your mask,
such that if you change your mind later and want to alter your mask, you
also need to sharpen over again too. Whereas if you just sharpen the
entirety of the layer, then use a mask to limit it's effect locally, you can
manipulate the effect on the fly, so to speak
 
> I did this when using masks for dup's while using USM before ever thinking
> of finding edges to start off the mask... stupid me. I would spend a long
> time painting the mask to the edges, feathering the transition of course
> with a soft brush... thanks again John for a better way! Takes a smart
> person to make things easier.  Have you ever used "command option tilde" for
> a mask, then invert/paint/blurr that?

I hadn't. So this creates a luminosity mask based on your background layer,
and the invert makes it mask your lighter tones proportionally greater than
your shadows? Sounds good for doing an overall gamma move without
muddying/blowing-out your highlights? What do you usually use it for? I
guess it would be good for limiting the effect of some layer blend modes
too?
 
> I find in the first levels command (in John's SuperSharpener) I can get rid
> of most of the areas I don't want sharpened, then use your technique to
> paint out what I could not effect... without effecting the edges I wanted to
> keep... oh boy, hope that made some sense.

Makes sense! I'm sure it's stuff you were doing already, but I like that
it's in an action.

Todd

> Yes, it's all good stuff eh!?
> Carolyn
> 
> 
>> Getting back to our conversation a couple of weeks ago...
>> 
>> Remember I was speaking well of some of Deadman's "smart" sharpeners, and
>> you were speaking wisely of using layer masks. I've come to implement the
>> two in conjunction with each other in a way I'm quite happy with.
>> 
>> What I do is start with John's SuperSharpener action, and use it to make an
>> edge mask, but just after the 2nd levels adjustment on the mask I inserted a
>> stop in the action. At this point I've the beginnings of a nice mask loaded
>> as an alpha channel, and the action has stopped running. I can then paint on
>> the mask, or manipulate it anyway I see fit, and resume the action at that
>> point to apply the sharpening through a perfected mask, OR, what I prefer is
>> to not resume the action. I make my dupe layer, run USM on the entirety of
>> the layer, and load that mask as my layer mask.
>> 
>> It's the best of both worlds in that the mask making is somewhat automated
>> (or at least actioned), and the mask itself is infinitely more manipulable
>> and controllable.
>> 
>> JB, if you are reading this, I highly recommend this is how you implement
>> the action in the future. Too many times I ran it and then found out that an
>> area was not affected that I wished was, or vice versa, and had to start
>> from scratch. With this approach you just paint/blur/change opacity/etc.,
>> your layer mask until you are happy. And all the while you can see it's
>> effect on sharpening as you work. Add in that you can just alter the layer's
>> opacity to tailor the effect for different sizes/outputs, and.....
>> fuggedabouddit - it's the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Hi Todd,

> My only qualm with that approach is that your effect is fixed by your mask,
> such that if you change your mind later and want to alter your mask, you
> also need to sharpen over again too. Whereas if you just sharpen the
> entirety of the layer, then use a mask to limit it's effect locally, you can
> manipulate the effect on the fly, so to speak

Ahhh, I misunderstood you... yes, this makes sense!  I like to have most
everything reversable, thanks.

>> person to make things easier.  Have you ever used "command option tilde" for
>> a mask, then invert/paint/blurr that?
> 
> I hadn't. So this creates a luminosity mask based on your background layer,
> and the invert makes it mask your lighter tones proportionally greater than
> your shadows? Sounds good for doing an overall gamma move without
> muddying/blowing-out your highlights? What do you usually use it for? I
> guess it would be good for limiting the effect of some layer blend modes
> too?

Yes, or any other layer you want, just make sure it is selected and is the
only layer visible when you hit the keys. Or if you want the mask from all
layers, keep them all visible... kind of cool.

I have been using it as a starting point for sharpening before the edge
technique. Now I use it for gamma corrections and blending modes as you
said. It is extremely useful for multiply and screen... or any other blend
you require. You can also move the mask to a new channel and adjust it's
strength or effect with curves... then select and move it back to a layer.

Another great thing about PS6 is the folder sets. You can create a layer
mask on any layers you want but then if you want to apply, say a gradient
mask to the whole (or even to some of the layers) create a set, drag the
layers you want to effect into the set, apply a layer mask to the set
folder... very cool! It's like being able to mask twice. You can create
set's of only one layer if you want.

I sometimes want to add a gradient mask to a layer than already has a
heavily painted mask applied to it... that is when this come in handy.

>> I find in the first levels command (in John's SuperSharpener) I can get rid
>> of most of the areas I don't want sharpened, then use your technique to
>> paint out what I could not effect... without effecting the edges I wanted to
>> keep... oh boy, hope that made some sense.
> 
> Makes sense! I'm sure it's stuff you were doing already, but I like that
> it's in an action.

Me too!  I really like to use actions for batch manipulations. For example I
scanned in about a hundred shots of my son playing flag football at MacMahon
Stadium (pro stadium here). I'm putting them on his web site so his team
mates can choose some shots... the action I created did almost everything!
Wish there was such a thing for housework.

Carolyn

on 11/26/01 12:27 PM, Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> Another great thing about PS6 is the folder sets. You can create a layer
> mask on any layers you want but then if you want to apply, say a gradient
> mask to the whole (or even to some of the layers) create a set, drag the
> layers you want to effect into the set, apply a layer mask to the set
> folder... very cool! It's like being able to mask twice. You can create
> set's of only one layer if you want.
> 
> I sometimes want to add a gradient mask to a layer than already has a
> heavily painted mask applied to it... that is when this come in handy.

Great tips!

I get a bit confused by when to use a gradient as a mask, vs using a
gradient layer (it's one of the adjustment layers) vs a gradient map. I've
only used a Gradient Adjustment Layer but once. I think I clipped it to
another layer to add to the effect of darkening one side of a sky. I don't
know what a gradient Map is at all.

Do you use Gradient Layers and Gradient Maps? If so, what for?

> the action I created did almost everything!
> Wish there was such a thing for housework.

Now you're talking! ;-)

Todd

For Web use, it sometimes makes sharper looking web images to use
Photoshop's "Sharpen Edges" filter. This results in very sharp pictures
without an oversharpened look that you can sometimes get with the
unsharp mask filter. This works especially well with 72 DPI web images.

Jerry



Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> 
> Hi Todd,
> 
> > My only qualm with that approach is that your effect is fixed by your mask,
> > such that if you change your mind later and want to alter your mask, you
> > also need to sharpen over again too. Whereas if you just sharpen the
> > entirety of the layer, then use a mask to limit it's effect locally, you can
> > manipulate the effect on the fly, so to speak
> 
> Ahhh, I misunderstood you... yes, this makes sense!  I like to have most
> everything reversable, thanks.
> 
> >> person to make things easier.  Have you ever used "command option tilde" for
> >> a mask, then invert/paint/blurr that?
> >
> > I hadn't. So this creates a luminosity mask based on your background layer,
> > and the invert makes it mask your lighter tones proportionally greater than
> > your shadows? Sounds good for doing an overall gamma move without
> > muddying/blowing-out your highlights? What do you usually use it for? I
> > guess it would be good for limiting the effect of some layer blend modes
> > too?
> 
> Yes, or any other layer you want, just make sure it is selected and is the
> only layer visible when you hit the keys. Or if you want the mask from all
> layers, keep them all visible... kind of cool.
> 
> I have been using it as a starting point for sharpening before the edge
> technique. Now I use it for gamma corrections and blending modes as you
> said. It is extremely useful for multiply and screen... or any other blend
> you require. You can also move the mask to a new channel and adjust it's
> strength or effect with curves... then select and move it back to a layer.
> 
> Another great thing about PS6 is the folder sets. You can create a layer
> mask on any layers you want but then if you want to apply, say a gradient
> mask to the whole (or even to some of the layers) create a set, drag the
> layers you want to effect into the set, apply a layer mask to the set
> folder... very cool! It's like being able to mask twice. You can create
> set's of only one layer if you want.
> 
> I sometimes want to add a gradient mask to a layer than already has a
> heavily painted mask applied to it... that is when this come in handy.
> 
> >> I find in the first levels command (in John's SuperSharpener) I can get rid
> >> of most of the areas I don't want sharpened, then use your technique to
> >> paint out what I could not effect... without effecting the edges I wanted to
> >> keep... oh boy, hope that made some sense.
> >
> > Makes sense! I'm sure it's stuff you were doing already, but I like that
> > it's in an action.
> 
> Me too!  I really like to use actions for batch manipulations. For example I
> scanned in about a hundred shots of my son playing flag football at MacMahon
> Stadium (pro stadium here). I'm putting them on his web site so his team
> mates can choose some shots... the action I created did almost everything!
> Wish there was such a thing for housework.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Todd Flashner Wrote:
> I get a bit confused by when to use a gradient as a mask, vs using a
> gradient layer (it's one of the adjustment layers) vs a gradient map. I've
> only used a Gradient Adjustment Layer but once. I think I clipped it to
> another layer to add to the effect of darkening one side of a sky. I don't
> know what a gradient Map is at all.
> 
> Do you use Gradient Layers and Gradient Maps? If so, what for?

I have used the gradient maps... It maps the colors to the tonal range
rather than simply overlaying a tone on the whole. (did that make sense?) I
think it is similair to using the duotone/tritone feature to map colors.

I like the copper one in reverse, it almost looks solarized (kinda, sorta)
on a black and white. You can also blend the gradient map layers as with any
adjustment layer and use the opacity settings of course.  Some of this is
funky stuff, for creative imagery, perhaps not black and white printing.

But that said, try using a sepia gradient map, then set that layer to
overlay or soft light, play with the opacity.

Can make some stunning monochromes, no?

Gradient layers:  Yes, the same as just making a layer and applying a
gradient to it.  If you use a black to tranparent on a layer, then overlay
or other blend mode that layer to your background (or any other layer of
course) you can effect a burn, or simply darken it or what have you.

Other uses would be special effects, but those I do in color mostly. No, I
don't do rainbows... ;-)

Carolyn

Hi Jerry, 

We should have changed our subject line... we were talking about sharpening
for everything and other stuff.

I do not like sharpen edges because there is no control. You pick it, it
does it's thing and you have no input. But like you say, maybe for web
work... I think I'd still like the control.

Carolyn

> For Web use, it sometimes makes sharper looking web images to use
> Photoshop's "Sharpen Edges" filter. This results in very sharp pictures
> without an oversharpened look that you can sometimes get with the
> unsharp mask filter. This works especially well with 72 DPI web images.
> 
> Jerry
>

Carolyn, try it for web use. It really works. This is only for the
smaller low res files. I never use it for anything else.

If there is too much sharpening, just fade it back a little. I usually
can do it twice before I get objectionable artifacts, so I fade the
second application back to about 50 percent or so.

Jerry






Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> We should have changed our subject line... we were talking about sharpening
> for everything and other stuff.
> 
> I do not like sharpen edges because there is no control. You pick it, it
> does it's thing and you have no input. But like you say, maybe for web
> work... I think I'd still like the control.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
> > For Web use, it sometimes makes sharper looking web images to use
> > Photoshop's "Sharpen Edges" filter. This results in very sharp pictures
> > without an oversharpened look that you can sometimes get with the
> > unsharp mask filter. This works especially well with 72 DPI web images.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/