View Single Post

Old 01-29-2015   #108
VertovSvilova
Registered User
 
VertovSvilova is offline
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 315
Quote:
Originally Posted by noimmunity View Post
I went back and reconverted one of those images above with the sheep. There isn't a great deal of difference at any viewing ratio between 0 sharpening and -0.7 in SPP.

The real difference comes in the contrast that I applied during PP of the TIFF files. For the first time, I did everything in a batch, and it looks like this resulted in some images that have had too much contrast applied. The sheep image in question for instance looks better with less "aggressive" use of the contrast sliders (I'm using three of them, divided into midtone, highlight, and shadow(.

Thanks for the heads up.
Maybe it's the contrast (?) In the past (when the Merrills first came out) the prevailing thought was to reduce sharpening from default to around -7. This seemed to reduce that 'crunchiness' aliasing that's sometimes apparent in the XF3 files. But you're not seeing that with your files, so may not (?)

fwiw, what I see as 'crunchy' is this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...&postcount=175 compared to this: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...&postcount=161

The fine details (the grass blades and the horse's tack, etc..) take on an odd non-photo-like appearance whereas the little girl looks 'normal' to me, i.e., like a film photograph. I see it sometimes in my own Merrill images but it goes away if the file is printed (either ink or conventional chemical RA-4 printing.) And the 'crunchiness' is beneficial with printing, but looks weird to me on the web. Again, too much like an electronic technical drawing. I think it's kind of cool that it can reveal such detail, but it just looks odd to me. I guess it's just me...
  Reply With Quote