![]() At that kind of size there's plenty of defects visible Which had required some pretty extensive color balance tweaking to ![]() Three of which had gone through the UFRaw-> That print feels more "touchable" and real than the other two, and I think it is because of the noise.įor what it's worth, I recently printed three images at B1 size, all And the noise - once I got rid of the chroma component - just becomes pleasing microstructure in the print instead. In print - even at this size - you have to be told about the misfocus, and even then you have to get in close and look for it to see it. At 100% it really does not look very hot at all. One of the three I thought of as borderline unusable due to noise and a slight misfocus. In fact, printing at that size vividly reinforced a truism stated here quite often: zooming in at 100% on an image does not show you anything like what it will actually look like when printed or cropped for viewing. If anything print is more forgiving than the screen in this regard. At that kind of size there's plenty of defects visible if you bother to look close (most people don't of course as they're interested in the picture not a small detail in it), but artefacts from 8-bit processing stages aren't one of them. Gimp workflow, and one of which had required some pretty extensive color balance tweaking to get it right. Stay with a 16-bit, lossless compression workflow, but for everythingĮlse I find the above workflow to work very well without noticeableįor what it's worth, I recently printed three images at B1 size, all three of which had gone through the UFRaw-> I always use this to resize, sharpen, and compress jpegsįor very large prints (Larger than 8x12?), I would probably try to Gimp (Only when I need cloning, processes using layers,Īlgorithm. For most things, I just don't find that savingġ6-bit files from Ufraw to be a significant advantage though. To manipulate 16-bit files, you can always save a 16-bit tiff fileįrom Ufraw which can then be further processed in 16-bits by eitherĭigikam or Cinepaint. Iįind that all adjustments that benefit significantly from 16-bitĬolor can be made within Ufraw. I always use this to resize, sharpen, and compress jpegs for web posting)įor very large prints (Larger than 8x12?), I would probably try to stay with a 16-bit, lossless compression workflow, but for everything else I find the above workflow to work very well without noticeable loss of quality.įWIW, I agree 100% with Jan Moren. Imagemagick ( IMHO, the best resizing algorithm. Gimp (Only when I need cloning, processes using layers, etc.) -> Ufraw (Ev adjust, white balance, curves, denoise, etc) ->ĭigikam (aspect-ratio crop, refocus sharpening, etc) -> For most things, I just don't find that saving 16-bit files from Ufraw to be a significant advantage though. If you really need additional tools to manipulate 16-bit files, you can always save a 16-bit tiff file from Ufraw which can then be further processed in 16-bits by either Digikam or Cinepaint. I find that all adjustments that benefit significantly from 16-bit color can be made within Ufraw.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |