sebboh wrote: Bifurcator wrote:
And of course again just like FlyPenFly said there too, you should optimize for both the original 100% and for the targeted output. Nothing else even makes much sense. You can\'t tell me you don\'t do that S. I know you do it - I can see it in your images and I think I read you saying as much in the recent past too.
i almost never do that unless i plan to print at or above 100%. i optimize my originals for downsizing, which is quite different than optimizing them for viewing at 100%.
Optimizing sharpness at 100% will on many types of motifs inevitably create moire in standardized step.downsizing scripts which I assume many of us use. Usually on things like straight lines and similar, less so for nature/landscape. I have stopped sharpening at the 100% level (above default in ACR) if focusing was not missed. But in high ISO-/short DOF situations where noise reduction is needed, a slight counter action in sharpening is appropriate..
But there\'s a difference if using FF - crop - or \"worse\" MFT. Smaller sensor needs more sharpness care at 100%. Note, this is true given equal pixelcount, ie the FF will have much lager pixels.
I bet some will object, especially people using small sensors tripods taking still life where it is more than possible to - with top lenses - get amazing results on e.g. the 5N at the pixellevel. But the cropped Canon 7D I left a couple of years ago needed much more care at 100% to be happy with a downsized final result.
Aug 22, 2012 at 05:22 PM
Previous versions of wfrank's message #10902444 « How much sharpness do you need? »
