POLL - How much resolution (lpm) you can achieve?

[Jim Jones]

That's all well and good, and many will agree with you. However, it seems to be important to the OP. So, let's deal with his question.

That said, I don't think sharpness is the only criterium either, but I'm always turned off by images that are not as sharp as they could be when they could be improved by sharpness. I'm well aware, unsharpness can be a creative tool (many good examples in the APUG library of that), but that shouldn't become an excuse for sloppy craftsmanship.

Very true. Even when unsharpness is necessary because of technical limitations, it need not be unpleasant. As I understand, Edward Weston had an iris modified for adequate DOF in his macrophotography. The contact prints were not be perfectly sharp. However, the subjects lacked the kind of detail that demanded critical sharpness. Optical limitation is just one of many factors we should always consider.

[Q.G.]

Yes.
And one of those limitations goes something like "adequate DoF in macro equals unsharp pictures".

[Diapositivo]

Thanks A49 for your quite clear answer. Yes the question was not really on-topic, but there are already two resolution-related threads on APUG (and at least one on DPUG I found out).

Marco, I did not post it on DPUG because it really was about resolution and its visual perception. If you just substitute PPI with the equivalent lp/mm my question remains the same.

Cheers
Fabrizio

[onnect17]

I'm one of those giving priority to the sharpness, not for other reason that it will give you an idea of how much you're are loosing from the original image in front of the camera. I believe the need for sharpening in PS is an indicator that something is wrong in the path.

[RalphLambrecht]

Let's not forget that Photoshop's 'unsharp masking' command is a copy of a manual process, called 'unsharp masking' and has been used in analog photography decades before Photoshop was conceived.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/W...MaskingEd2.pdf

[onnect17]

Let's not forget that Photoshop's 'unsharp masking' command is a copy of a manual process, called 'unsharp masking' and has been used in analog photography decades before Photoshop was conceived.

http://www.waybeyondmonochrome.com/W...MaskingEd2.pdf

Ralph,
Thanks for the link to the chapter. Very interesting reading.
I would not use the word "copy" in comparing the manual process to the filter in PS. Perhaps the idea is the same but the dig*tal world is a different story. Once you start getting close to the sampling resolution the damage to the data is significant.

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph,
Thanks for the link to the chapter. Very interesting reading.
I would not use the word "copy" in comparing the manual process to the filter in PS. Perhaps the idea is the same but the dig*tal world is a different story. Once you start getting close to the sampling resolution the damage to the data is significant.

Actually, the result may not be, but the underlying principle is exactly the same: increase edge contrast.