CS3 and PhotoKit Sharpen?

[Mark D Segal]

So can I take from this the thought that BF's new sharpening book (the one that just got tech book of the year at the online photographer) is definitely worth picking up?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This book is a unique and valuable contribution to our understanding about the fundamentals underlying image sharpening and a number of related variables concerning image characteristics and image quality. There's a fair bit of stuff here you find, or you won't find as coherently presented, anywhere else. I think it is one of the most important volumes in my library of Photoshop reference books. FWIW from me - highly recommended.

[DarkPenguin]

Sold!  I'll pick it up next time I'm at Borders.

[Brian Gilkes]

The concept that much of our existence might be an illusion is not unique to eastern thought and Aristotle's allegory of the cave presents a similar concept.


A minor point but since this thread is largely about attribution, I think you meant Plato , not Aristotle.
Ref The Republic, Book 7 (from memory)
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au

[Brian Gilkes]

Sorry, I didn't mean to rub it in, I skipped P3.
I'll just go out and order that book.
Actually it would be a good thing for all LL  members to do so too..

Cheers
Brian

PS I'm happy to enter into a conversation about Plato, Aristotle , Descartes and photography, but not in this thread.
BG

[bjanes]

PS I'm happy to enter into a conversation about Plato, Aristotle , Descartes and photography, but not in this thread.
BG
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This thread started out discussing the use of PK Sharpener with PSCS3, but it later developed into a testimonial for Bruce, which is fine with me. I bought Bruce's sharpening book when it first came out and would recommend it highly to anyone interested in the subject. It is a first edition, and I hope that Jeff or another of the PG group will update it as Bruce's concepts evolve. To the best of my knowledge, nothing else in print comes close to Bruce's treatment of this important subject.

Bill

PS: as an indication of his sense of fair play and modesty, Bruce does have a disclaimer  about PK Sharpener in the forward. The book is not about PKS, but personally I would like to see some material about how the concepts are applied in PKS, but perhaps they don't want to divulge trade secrets.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

This thread started out discussing the use of PK Sharpener with PSCS3, but it later developed into a testimonial for Bruce, which is fine with me. I bought Bruce's sharpening book when it first came out and would recommend it highly to anyone interested in the subject. It is a first edition, and I hope that Jeff or another of the PG group will update it as Bruce's concepts evolve. To the best of my knowledge, nothing else in print comes close to Bruce's treatment of this important subject.

Bill

PS: as an indication of his sense of fair play and modesty, Bruce does have a disclaimer  about PK Sharpener in the forward. The book is not about PKS, but personally I would like to see some material about how the concepts are applied in PKS, but perhaps they don't want to divulge trade secrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm about to go looking for any of Bruce's books that I don't already own.

If I run across any of Plato's books on digital photography, I'll be sure to let you folks know.  

[Schewe]

If I run across any of Plato's books on digital photography, I'll be sure to let you folks know. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well. . .knowing all the major authors & experts out there, I can tell you that Bruce comes about as close as you are likely to find...Bruce wasn't Greek. . .but he comes the closest to being what I would call a "Digital Imaging Philosopher"...

:~)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Well. . .knowing all the major authors & experts out there, I can tell you that Bruce comes about as close as you are likely to find...Bruce wasn't Greek. . .but he comes the closest to being what I would call a "Digital Imaging Philosopher"...

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From that one workshop and all I've read since, I'll have to agree 100%.

[PeterLange]

Other people, ... have discovered the fruits of their labor showing up in Mitch's writings as well.

I've had some of my writing appropriated. An article I did (in 2002 on Color to B&W conversions) was, well, let's just call it "appropriated". I quoted Thomas Knoll as telling me that Photoshop's default grayscale conversion was 30% Red, 60% Green and 10% blue channel calculations and went on to explain how to use channels to make custom B&W conversions...in his 2003 article "Split Your Channels for Improved B&W", he writes those exact same numbers...30, 60 10. He doesn't reference my article and I happen to know for a fact that Photoshop's default conversion %'s is -NOT- documented anywhere...I got it from the horse's mouth-Thomas Knoll. But he writes it as though -HE- discovered those numbers all by himself (ya see, numbers CAN be valuable :~)

If not "hijack" what term would YOU use?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quote:

>>  Perhaps you've learned that you can compute the luminance of an RGB color by taking 30% of its red component plus 59% of its green component plus 11% of its blue component. These weightings are often expressed in three-digit precision as 29.9% red, 58.7% green and 11.4% blue. Did you ever wonder where these weightings came from?

You can find them in the above table as the relative Y values for red, green and blue for the NTSC color model. The more precise weightings are 29.8839% red, 58.6811% green and 11.4350% blue. But it should also be obvious that the real RGB weightings depend upon the color system in use. So the "standard" weightings are incorrect for other RGB systems like sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998).

Another relevant fact is that these weightings must be made in a linear RGB space, that is, after the gamma companding function has been removed. It is very common to see the weightings applied bluntly to the companded RGB values, which is wrong.  <<

[a href=\"http://www.brucelindbloom.com/WorkingSpaceInfo.html]http://www.brucelindbloom.com/WorkingSpaceInfo.html[/url]

        .

No need to comment
& Happy new year for everyone around here, Peter

--

[Schewe]

No need to comment
& Happy new year for everyone around here, Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you note the Copyright © 2001 - 2006 Bruce Justin Lindbloom, it predated my article (but that's not where I got it) but post dates the time in which Thomas Knoll first discussed it. . .

No additional comments needed. . .

:~)

(of course, it STILL doesn't answer the question why "Mitch" used the exact same numbers that I rounded to... ;~)

[Ray]

If I run across any of Plato's books on digital photography, I'll be sure to let you folks know. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here's a description of the cave anaolgy from Bertrand Russell's, 'The History of Western Philosophy'.

Those who are destitute of philosophy may be compared to prisoners in a cave, who are only able to look in one direction because they are bound, and who have a fire behind them and a wall infront. Between them and the wall there is nothing; all they see are shadows of themselves, and of objects behind them, cast on the wall by the light of the fire. Inevitably they regard these shadows as real, and have no notion of the objects to which they are due.

Could we say, perhaps, that the Photoshop's Shadows/Highlight tool might have helped, as well as a Bruce Fraser sharpening routine.    (Hope no-one thinks I'm being too irreverent to either Plato or Bruce.)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Here's a description of the cave anaolgy from Bertrand Russell's, 'The History of Western Philosophy'.
Could we say, perhaps, that the Photoshop's Shadows/Highlight tool might have helped, as well as a Bruce Fraser sharpening routine.    (Hope no-one thinks I'm being too irreverent to either Plato or Bruce.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Each should feel honored to be associated with the other, IMHO.  

[gmitchel]

I appreciate the comment of Mr. Janes and others concerning the sharpening tools available on The Light's Right site.

I have done my best over the last year to avoid any inflammatory comments in forums re. PixelGenius, Photokit Sharpener, and the like. I am disappointed to see Jess Schewe still feels the need to continue posting abusive messages.

Jeff, you both really need to let the past go. I encourage you to discuss the merits of your software without the need to attack me or others.

I have been quite reasonable in my descriptions of PixelGenius software. I have found Photokit Sharpener to be a competent product and I have said that on several forums. I do not agree that it is the best tool for sharpening. That's my honest opinion.

I do not believe there is a "best" tool for sharpening. I own PhotoKit Sharpener, Focal Blade, nik! Sharpener, Power Retouche Sharpness, etc. I have found that you can obtain equally good results with any of these products or with my actions and Javascripts.

As I have stated on many occasions, the choice of sharpening tools is largely a matter of personal preference. The implementation of some feature that one person finds easy and intuitive can be awkward for another.

I have always encouraged people to download trials of the various sharpening tools that are available. Download my actions or Javascripts. Use them all. Compare the results. Then work with the tools that best serve your needs.

If you download my tools and find you prefer another tool, I have no quarrel. I will be equally pleased if you find my tools useful or you decide to use another tool. What is most important to me is that as many people as possible have the opportunity to derive as much satisfaction from digital photography as I do.

I wish the best to the digital photography community.

Cheers,

Mitch

www.thelightsrightstudio.com
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLightsRight/

[Ed Erkes]

I believe this is my first post in this forum. I've been involved in photography and doing my own processing and printing for 25 years. Some of my images can be viewed at
 http://members.photoportfolios.net/ederkes
 I've been using the digital darkroom for about 8 years (and I've still got a very great deal to learn). I've owned Photokit Sharpener for several years and have been generally pleased with the product. However, I've recently discovered the actions and scripts at The Light's Right Studio and in my experience, Mitchell's sharpening actions are equal or superior to Photokit Sharpener. My suggestion is to try them out and decide for yourself. Take a dozen or so images and sharpen both ways. If ten of the 12 look better with one technique, then there's no need to worry about product research or "magic numbers".
Over the years, I've read a great deal about conventional and digital darkroom processing. After reading writings by Dan Margulis, John Paul Caponigro, Jeff Schewe, and others, I must say the egos are much larger in the digital darkroom world than there ever were in the conventional darkroom world. Previously, I thought Ansel Adams had a little bit of an ego problem, but in light of recent readings, I think he was remarkably restrained.