Skip to main content
Photography

Return to Question

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhotos/status/144738264090284032
edited tags
Link
Imre
Imre
  • 32k
  • 11
  • 108
  • 177
Removed signature.
Source Link
edit approved Dec 7, 2011 at 18:39
Arseni Mourzenko
edit approved Dec 7, 2011 at 18:39
Arseni Mourzenko
  • 4.4k
  • 4
  • 33
  • 58

I take macro shots of watches and post them on the web (not intended for printing), typically 640x480px. I've been composing those shots in the 1504x1000px frame so that it shows the required size on-screen after cropping, i.e. it is not re-sized during processing. Although we know shooting at 3008x2000px gives greater resolution, the image has to be re-sized, for my purposes, during processing. So, while realizing that sharpness is subjective, which method should give better apparent sharpness?

Nikon D50 (APS-C, 7.8 um pixel pitch), Nikkor 60mm macro D model (usually set f/8), shooting between M = 1:1 and about 1:5.

Thanks, T.C.

I take macro shots of watches and post them on the web (not intended for printing), typically 640x480px. I've been composing those shots in the 1504x1000px frame so that it shows the required size on-screen after cropping, i.e. it is not re-sized during processing. Although we know shooting at 3008x2000px gives greater resolution, the image has to be re-sized, for my purposes, during processing. So, while realizing that sharpness is subjective, which method should give better apparent sharpness?

Nikon D50 (APS-C, 7.8 um pixel pitch), Nikkor 60mm macro D model (usually set f/8), shooting between M = 1:1 and about 1:5.

Thanks, T.C.

I take macro shots of watches and post them on the web (not intended for printing), typically 640x480px. I've been composing those shots in the 1504x1000px frame so that it shows the required size on-screen after cropping, i.e. it is not re-sized during processing. Although we know shooting at 3008x2000px gives greater resolution, the image has to be re-sized, for my purposes, during processing. So, while realizing that sharpness is subjective, which method should give better apparent sharpness?

Nikon D50 (APS-C, 7.8 um pixel pitch), Nikkor 60mm macro D model (usually set f/8), shooting between M = 1:1 and about 1:5.

Source Link
bloggs
bloggs
  • 31
  • 1

Which is sharper, theoretically - small image at 100% or large image re-sized in Photoshop?

I take macro shots of watches and post them on the web (not intended for printing), typically 640x480px. I've been composing those shots in the 1504x1000px frame so that it shows the required size on-screen after cropping, i.e. it is not re-sized during processing. Although we know shooting at 3008x2000px gives greater resolution, the image has to be re-sized, for my purposes, during processing. So, while realizing that sharpness is subjective, which method should give better apparent sharpness?

Nikon D50 (APS-C, 7.8 um pixel pitch), Nikkor 60mm macro D model (usually set f/8), shooting between M = 1:1 and about 1:5.

Thanks, T.C.