I'm wondering what the logic is in continually resizing as every time you do that you are resampling and therefore reducing the image quality.

:

Sharpening in Martin Eveneing's Photoshop 7 book is given about a page, by the time the CS2 book arrived it ran to many pages, so thoughts on sharpening have moved on considerably.

I really suggest you read the appropriate sections of that book for in depth understanding.

As a starting point, when converting from the relatively soft RAW image applying some capture sharpening may be a good idea. You can allow the RAW converter to do it, or perhaps try Mattmatic's "Sharpen-o-Matic" which a search on this forum will find for you.

Any localised creative sharpening during the PS work may help the image.

The final output sharpening is the last thing done and prepares the file for the printer or other output device.

Files once opened should be saved in lossless formats such as PSD or TIFF. The exception is images destined for web use which are generally saved as JPEGs.

The simplistic approach is to do the sharpening last of all, especially if the original out of camera is a JPEG.

Don't forget though that all this assumes that the image is being used for a large high quality print. We can take the simplistic route quite happily if we are discussing web use and 6" x 4" prints.

Definitely worth bothering with. It will need good images to get the best out of the listing and the most detailed description possible to list all the good and not so good features of the item.

Could do well.

eBay is probably the place to offer it.

I think most people know that stealing is wrong, regardless of what they think of pricing levels. I don't think "The price was too high so I stole it" is a tenable argument.

We actually enjoy Focus. We don't go there to buy things but to have a look at what's going on generally and get a chance to handle things like camera bags that are not always that easy to get to see.

As for the venue, well I really dislike the parking arrangements - I don't see why we have to walk past empty car parks that are much closer than the ones allocated - but we still go there every year.

I don't think Canon were there last year either. Perhaps it's not the place people go to buy cameras?

Well it wouldn't be if there are no manufacturers there...

It's getting there, certainly for the APS-C sized sensors.

The problem really arises with compact cameras as the size of the sensor is so variable. As a consequence it's difficult to relate to the actual focal length, hence the reference to "35mm-equivalent". Some are even marked up in 35mm-equivalent focal lengths.

This was never a problem with film because although formats were different they were at least a defined size. It's probably also true that the buyers were mainly enthusiasts and so they had a good knowledge of photography. There may now be quite a few non-photographers who are actually very good indeed at producing great images but who have limited technical knowledge.

A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens regardless of what film or sensor size you put behind it.

Excellent, I enjoyed seeing those. You have a good keen eye for a picture.

You could try the Epson website and see if they make any claims there.