[Leica] Why sharpen?

[kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)]

Yes, that is what we did in the darkroom.  A copy negative slightly out of
focus and low contrast, sandwiched with the original and printed on high
contrast paper to compensate.  The whole process only took, oh, about 2-3
hours to get right.  Vs. PK Sharpener Pro or even Photoshop, a few seconds
out of your life.  Not to mention all those drawings about how you dodged
and burned and edge burned.  That you could never completely recreate anyway
in a second printing.  Plus you are dealing with at least 4x5" film.  Or how
about adjusting the negative density by putting it in selenium solution, or
sepia toner, or chromium intensifier etc.?  I did all that.  

I'm all for nostalgia, but I would rather be staked out in a bed of starving
fire (far ants for those in the south) ants than go back to the darkroom.
However, for those interested here is the grail:

http://www.lightboxinc.com/gallery3/gallery03.html

Oops, I see the last update is 2004.  Hope he is still kicking.  I have seen
many of his prints in person, and if sharpness is your thing, you'll be at
home.

Ken

As far as jpg, I don't know why anyone would do that unless, as Mark
implies, the saucer has landed and you need to get stuff fast.  But then,
that would be a TV thing and I would rather have good raw images.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org [mailto:lug-
> bounces+kcarney1=cox.net at leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Susan Ryan
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 7:05 PM
> To: Leica Users Group
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Why sharpen?
> 
> 
> On Jun 5, 2009, at 6:06 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
> > In the film world there is unsharp mask which is a mask you make to
> > sandwich
> > with your film to make it look sharper. Two pieces of film back to
> > back in a
> > sandwich. Hold the mustard. You could call that "sharpening".
> > But a more real way of "sharpening" in film use is more direct.
> > There is the use of better than typical glass.
> > Leica glass
> > Or the use of primes instead of zooms.
> > The use of tripods and proper shutter speeds;
> > Flash with high sync speeds.
> >
> > But more to the point is film.
> > Sharper film is slower film.
> > But not if you're going to use slower than realistic shutter speeds
> > and hand
> > hold it.
> >
> > More directly to the point in black and white is development.
> > Instead of a standard solvent developers like D76 1:1 or heaven forbid
> > straight one could an acutance developer like Beutlers or nephin blue.
> > Rodinal is a class or two above D76 and Xtol even but there is a
> > class of
> > developers or two above Rodinal.
> > Like Beutlers or nephin blue and others.
> > Pyro maybe.
> >
> > So when you think "sharpening" you could think that.
> > Informed and proper technique.
> >
> > Little point in spending thousands instead of hundreds on glass and
> > then
> > melt your film down in 100 grams of sulfite per liter.
> > That's not all that sharpening unmasked.
> >
> > There seems to be an inference here that people shooting RAW are
> > geeks.
> > People shooting RAW are people of normal photographic concerns.
> > People shooting jpegs are such people shooting huge amounts of work on
> > instantaneous deadlines.
> > Or Dilettantes.
> > People who bottom line could just not ever be bothered.
> > Photographic sociopaths - psychopaths.
> >
> >
> > Mark William Rabiner
> >