Perceived Sharpness.

[Brent Long]

I really hate to see people using the eraser tool, since it is destructive (once you close the file, those pixels are gone forever so future fine tuning means redoing it all). I much prefer that people use layer mask and paint out an effect using a black paint brush. Opacity of the brush can be set just like the Eraser's percentage. Using this non-destructive method, the sharpening that has been hidden can fine tuned forever, and yields the same result as the eraser.

Glad you chimed in, Greg. I usually use masks for these types of things and had never played with the eraser tool. I thought I may be missing something, but if the eraser tool us not undoable as a mask is, I'll not bother.

The history brush can be used similarly, but I guess it, too, must throw away future possible adjustments when closed. I guess what I heard when I first got into PS was true, learn to mask, learn to mask, learn to mask.

[Ken Lee]

I really hate to see people using the eraser tool, since it is destructive (once you close the file, those pixels are gone forever so future fine tuning means redoing it all). I much prefer that people use layer mask and paint out an effect using a black paint brush. Opacity of the brush can be set just like the Eraser's percentage. Using this non-destructive method, the sharpening that has been hidden can fine tuned forever, and yields the same result as the eraser.

When we paint with black (or gray) inside the layer mask, it looks as though we have deleted the pixels, but they can be restored by painting them white. It's a bit surprising to see, but it works great.

The same effect can be had by deleting inside the layer mask. Painting white over the area, restores the pixels.

Thanks again for pointing this out !

[Ken Lee]

...to improve scanner microcontrast try unsharp mask at 15-20 % radius 50-70 yes I know odd numbers, but it makes up for low mtf of most scanners.

Brilliant.

As Brent said: I must say, it's very, very good.

[mdm]

Thanks for that. The answer I was looking for because this one printed grey and mushy.

[rdenney]

Sure . . . sure, she did. That's what they all say, Rick

It's that crappy Nikon D300 she uses. I never have that problem with my Canon 5D.

Rick "happily married" Denney

[SeanEsopenko]

Sorry for esurrecting a thread that hasn't been touched in 5 days.

From what I've seen digital is susceptible to edge aliasing and I think it lacks a general tonality that even small format films have. One Software's Perfect Resize uses some good algorithms but it can't fix the heavy aliasing that can be coaxed from a DSLR with a very sharp lens and the right subject. It prints great but only up to a certain size. I find my 5D, even with Zeiss glass, can only print up to about 13x19 before it starts to require huge amounts of laborious tweaking to go any larger. A 4x5 scan on my V700 with some dust spotting beats it at 20x24 in 1/4 the time spent. For those interested I scan at 6400 dpi then downsample to 2200 or 2400 (depending on my mood). With my new Mamiya 7II I notice more "perceived" sharpness when I downsample to 3000 dpi instead of 2400 like I usually do.

I print "sharpening test strips" for certain texture regions of a print to see what various sharpening settings do with my R3000. I wish I spent the extra $500 or so and got a printer one size up (hindsight's always better than foresight) but from the inkjet crops I print there's a lot to be done with the tweaking of sharpening because what's seen on the monitor does not translate to what's seen on the print, like others have said.

As for "perceived sharpness" because this is what this thread is all about, I've been trying to figure out ways to increase the perceived sharpness of optical RA4 prints. There's tons of cool stuff to with a 10x loupe when enlarging a 4x5 to 16x20 but step back and I'm not getting the perceived sharpness I get with an inkjet. I'm just getting into masking but I'd like to get to the point where I'm churning RA4 prints out that are perceptibly as sharp as an inkjet but with the viewing loupe sharpness inherent in the optical process.

With the inkjet and a 10x loupe all I see are dots but honestly viewing prints that close is for the artist's benefit; nobody else is going to stick their nose up that close and they can't if the print's behind framing glass