Upload & Sell: Off
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
The part of the script "...convert tif:- -profile sRGB.icc tif:-..." is converting from whatever profile you had before to sRGB. This is of course assuming you have copied sRGB.icc from ImageMagick installation folders to your current directory (or add full path to script). I don't know what happens if your source image isn't color managed, I have never tried non-color managed workflow, way too scary stuff for me...
A quick search did not reveal the path to the profile file, but I need to search again. My images are very gung-ho at the moment, and my monitor isn't properly calibrated either (I've only performed a coarse calibration by eye using a calibration chart), so I'm pretty much living dangerously as far as colors are concerned.
I hope you do not see my usage of the script as gross misuse of a fine instrument.
I use 975px max wide/height photos, due to this I can let the script convert 975px wide and 975px height image. When I post it to forum, I show other and link to other as larger image (example). If you need just one size photos, then I would use ^-operator in resize, see this. Alternatively you can use 'identify' command and Unix/Linux command line tools (e.g. sed) to read image dimensions to variables, and then compare variables, and based on comparison run different scripts. Possibilities are endless...
Ah, I seem to have misunderstood the original usage of the script: It is not even meant to discern between landscape and portrait, but only produce two different versions of the image, regardless of orientation. The preview image used (wide or tall) then depends on the orientation of the original image.
All the work I have done over the years with this method is because of ONE REASON: to preserve the small details I see in big images on my prints and 2560x1600 monitor on the websize images. Other methods typically when you "more sharpening" they just enhance the edges more and create halos, with soft images, this may work better. Generally if you have soft lenses with weak microcontrast, I would advice to search methods for edge sharpening...you can't find detail what is not there. However there are some things you can do (don't know any other tool than PhotoShop how...Show more →
Yes, I have understood from the descriptions that there is no universal "silver bullet" script, and some experimentation is required to get the most out of any given photo (even the sharp ones). A completely different workflow is required for the softer images, and there's no getting around the fact of "garbage in -> garbage out".
Anyway, I am very happy with the general results this script provides, but more demanding users will probably be able to fine-tune the script for each individual image.
EDIT: forgot to mention (sorry it's late...) reason 2: to preserve the DOF of larger photo. While most of the traditional methods loose the small textures, they ALSO sharpen the DOF, making it look even larger it was. On my "style" I use DOF for subject separation and for other purposes most of the time - I have very rarely images, in which everything is sharp. END OF EDIT
It is apparent in the converted images, that the script only brings out the details within the DOF and does not touch the OOF parts. Provided that there is detail to begin with within the DOF.
The idea of step sharpening is to preserve the textures, while most portrait shooters, don't want the textures, but instead want sharp edges.
I think this is a very good point, and it sums up this method very well.
Like I have tried to say; there will never single optimal method for every single photo. In PhotoShop I have 40+ scripts, which all end up creating 975px final image (they are different versions made in past years, not 40+ separate scripts each made for specific purpose. And I have absolute no clue what each of them does without trying...sure I get rough idea by looking at the PhotoShop script, but you never really know before trying).
This is most probably also reason, why any of the readymade software doesn't do step sharpening, but instead they use safe method, which makes...Show more →
Having just found out the power of step sharpening, it still makes me wonder why it is not provided as another option to use in LR et al. Professionals use Aperture and Lightroom, and surely they must also use web preview images to promote their work and show to the customers. One would think that if the option of step sharpening was provided, the pros would quickly realize the power (and also the limitations) of this method.