Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/06/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In theory A not so nice sounding thing. In practice Its the reality of how things are done. Somebody says "So and so famous photographer has his prints up at the gallery up the street they're selling for 3 grand each" how were they made? If they were digital which is extremely likely they were made with anti aliisly filters in front of his sensor. And they are glowing sharp as hell on the wall. And nobody's saying "gee those raw files would have been inherently sharper with no later sharpening if he didn't use an anti aliasing filter over his sensor". That's just not part of the conversation as people are being knocked over dead by the wonderfulllness of the prints. Nobodies saying "see this amazing detail? Its not really there its MADE UP by the sharpening software LATER". People are making really amazing images nowadays. Better then they ever did in the film days. The workflows they use are not catastrophically flawed. Or somebody would be saying something about the results. Mark William Rabiner > From: George Lottermoser <imagist3 at mac.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 22:36:50 -0500 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] OT: D3x vs. 'Blad CFV 16MP full sized samples > > and i would theorize > that the more AA applied > the more sharpening needed > the less "real" fine detail > and the more "invented" fine detail.