And if that’s right, that the image was made considerably larger, how does that affect the conclusions re sharpening? The measurement is in cms and he input 400!
Due to the magic of video, we made the prints before we recorded with the correct settings. The Cm should have been MM in the demo completely missed this in video edit. But the finding are still valid and were made at the correct size and units. Tim
Like the other 2 mentioned, in PS he resized the long side to 400, and it still showed Centimeters. 400 Centimeter image would fit on your table. So, what was the thinking on 400, and does it technically become a moot point, size the paper size was way smaller and PS, or driver, downsized it? You should clarify this point.
Due to the magic of video, we made the prints before we recorded with the correct settings. The Cm should have been MM in the demo completely missed this in video edit. But the finding are still valid and were made at the correct size and units. Tim
Don't you blow up the image massively, if you change the image size from 67 to 400 centimeters? Nevertheless, I got the point: resize before sharpen. Thanks for that clear message!
Due to the magic of video, we made the prints before we recorded with the correct settings. The Cm should have been MM in the demo completely missed this in video edit. But the finding are still valid and were made at the correct size and units. Tim
I get that for some people a sharp image is the most important thing For me the beauty of an image is its imperfections. An over sharpened digital image is for me one of the worst things that could happen to an image Give me a soft image with great lighting and composition over a tack sharp boring image any day Been photographing weddings for 21 years and for the last 4 years not used any sharpening at all and they all print very well.
Tim, did he not make the image considerably larger rather than smaller? Check the pixel dimensions and file size shown after his resizing?
And if that’s right, that the image was made considerably larger, how does that affect the conclusions re sharpening? The measurement is in cms and he input 400!
Due to the magic of video, we made the prints before we recorded with the correct settings. The Cm should have been MM in the demo completely missed this in video edit. But the finding are still valid and were made at the correct size and units. Tim
Great video!
Thank you so much!!
Like the other 2 mentioned, in PS he resized the long side to 400, and it still showed Centimeters. 400 Centimeter image would fit on your table. So, what was the thinking on 400, and does it technically become a moot point, size the paper size was way smaller and PS, or driver, downsized it? You should clarify this point.
Due to the magic of video, we made the prints before we recorded with the correct settings. The Cm should have been MM in the demo completely missed this in video edit. But the finding are still valid and were made at the correct size and units. Tim
Don't you blow up the image massively, if you change the image size from 67 to 400 centimeters? Nevertheless, I got the point: resize before sharpen. Thanks for that clear message!
Due to the magic of video, we made the prints before we recorded with the correct settings. The Cm should have been MM in the demo completely missed this in video edit. But the finding are still valid and were made at the correct size and units. Tim
I get that for some people a sharp image is the most important thing
For me the beauty of an image is its imperfections. An over sharpened digital image is for me one of the worst things that could happen to an image
Give me a soft image with great lighting and composition over a tack sharp boring image any day
Been photographing weddings for 21 years and for the last 4 years not used any sharpening at all and they all print very well.
Thank you, that is a great point and this isn't going to be for everyone. Nice little tool though if you do need it. Tim