Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: dabreeze on May 14, 2007, 06:38:44 pm
-
Tell me, Jeff, am I crazy for preferring your general all-purpose capture sharpening action you outline in your workflow PDF (green channel/find edges, etc.) @ 68% opacity over the PKS capture sharpen for high res cameras?
Yes, 'tis a bit more aggressive, but for the landscapes I shoot with lots of fine detail it seems to define things more and leaves the really fine tonal edges within leaves, branches et al alone. PKS capture is less aggressive but finds many more edges and looks, for lack of a more technical term, more spackled.
Even with the more aggressive sharpening, I have been happy with prints (up to 20x30) with additional layers of output sharpening (PKS) and even the occasional localized creative sharpen brush (PKS) as well.
Camera used is 1DsII, RAWS, 7600 inkjet, 300 dpi, luster and semi-matte papers.
Thoughts?
-
300 dpi is incorrect setting try 360 dpi and your prints will dramatically improve. (otherwise printer driver will do it's own very low quality interpolation to 360 dpi)
-
300 dpi is incorrect setting try 360 dpi and your prints will dramatically improve. (otherwise printer driver will do it's own very low quality interpolation to 360 dpi)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117671\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What printer model are you talking about, and have you actually tested this?
-
I should add that the image comparison I'm making of the two capture sharpenings is on screen at 50% and 100% (LaCie 321). I haven't done side by side comparisons of 11x17 work prints or larger yet, although I most definitely should.
I haven't yet because I have fine art gallery prints using both styles and they look great.
I'm just noticing the difference on screen and was wondering if Jeff (sorry about the mispelling of your name in the topic title! oops!) could give some insight as to the differences and the reasoning behind the less aggressive but seemingly more detailed, comprehensive sharpening of fine edges in the PKS version.
-
What printer model are you talking about, and have you actually tested this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117672\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yea. I thought the whole idea of a native resolution on a printer was debunked. Is this not so? And if the print really is interpolated up by the printer, how do we even know when it's doing this. Yes, I try to print at 300 or 360 but I assume if I have resolution to print at the size I want at 312dpi, there's no reason to downsample (or upsample it).
Eli
-
Yea. I thought the whole idea of a native resolution on a printer was debunked. Is this not so? And if the print really is interpolated up by the printer, how do we even know when it's doing this. Yes, I try to print at 300 or 360 but I assume if I have resolution to print at the size I want at 312dpi, there's no reason to downsample (or upsample it).
Eli
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, it's not "debunked", but we should be sure what we're talking about. The Epson X800 series printers, and the series of the generation before it, rasterize image file data at 360 PPI. That is the meaning of "native resolution". You know it is doing this is if you send a file to the printer that is not 360 PPI. There is one school of thought that we should have Photoshop resample the files to 360 before sending them to print, and another school that says it doesn't matter what you send to the printer between say 240 and 480, you won't see a quality difference on paper without a loupe. I have tested this on letter sized and A3 prints and my observations generally tend to support the latter position. But there is another factor at work here for those of us who use it: PK Sharpener. As we know, the Inkjet Output Sharpener has a number of discrete settings: 180, 240, 300, 360 and 480. Ideally, one's image PPI should be at one of those settings for the most accurate sharpening, because the calculations were done for those settings and file sizes. However, Pixelgenius has advised me in the past that fine results are obtained using the nearest setting to the file size within their ranges. Bottom line: in principle a case can be made that lining everything up from Output Sharpening to Printing at 360 may deliver the best print quality from these series of Epson printers, but not doing so will still deliver very high print quality - the differences don't jump out at you.
-
Tell me, Jeff, am I crazy for preferring your general all-purpose capture sharpening action you outline in your workflow PDF (green channel/find edges, etc.) @ 68% opacity over the PKS capture sharpen for high res cameras?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pretty sure that PDF pre-dates PK Sharpener...and was a basis for Bruce and I to discuss sharpening workflow. And no, it doesn't surprise me that some people may prefer more aggressive vs less aggressive.
When Sharpener first came out, the Digital HighRez was the original 1Ds. We debated over adjusting or adding a new routine for the 1Ds MII-Bruce decided against it. I actually will often run SuperSharpener 1 before capture sharpening to add a touch of additional sharpening-then turn that layer off after. Now that a 1Ds MIII is looming, we'll need to revisit the capture sharpening routines, although Bruce won't be here for that-I've learned enough that I can muddle through.
Comparing the results on screen is a bit foolish-even at 50% it won't represent the final print. Closer to 25% is more accurate in terms of the screen dither. But even that is off due to the differences in sizes-particularly large prints. The only way of testing a sharpening workflow is to actually do the prints...
I thought the whole idea of a native resolution on a printer was debunked. Is this not so?
Depends on what your are asking...the "effective resolution" of Epson's 1440/720 printers is 360ppi. The effective resolution for Canon & HP is 300ppi. But unless you are doing substantial upsampling AND image processing on top, you really don't get much help with an image unless you are going 200-400% upsampled. You are a lot better off using the image's "native resolution" (which is also a bit of a misnomer) and sharpening for the actual resolution sent to the printer.
And just to be clear, the print drivers don't do interpolation so much as use an error diffusion algorithm to form dots...if you send it TOO much resolution, it just tends to drop it like a sieve...but too much can actually be a bad thing in some cases where you can encounter interference patterns.
It's been my experience that as long as your file has uninterpolated resolution between 180 and 480 ppi, you DON'T want to resample to print-just resize with no resampling and sharpen for the actual pixel density. If it falls between the PK Sharpening settings, use the one closest.
Bruce Fraser figured out the resolution required based on how much resolution the normal human eye can resolve at various viewing distances. Since human vision is based on 1 minute of 1 degree, depending on how close or far your viewing distance is the eye can resolve:
8" - 480
10" - 360
12" - 300
18" - 240
24" - 180
So, as long as your viewing distances fall in the 8"-24" range, 180-480 is all you need to worry about. Note, more resolution in the print isn't bad and Bruce liked to point out the intended viewing distance of photographers is limited only by the length of their nose...
-
Actually I had always understood it that that was the proper viewing distance (nose length!) for photographers!! I just learned that by watching other photographers at exhibitions and they all seemed to be doing exactly the same thing.
Thanks for the feedback on capture sharpening. The interesting thing about the PKS capture setting is that while not as aggressive overall as your PDF method, it seems to seek and find many more edges within things like leaves, rocks, etc. and sharpens them, creating that "spackled" look I described in the original post.
I have compared web-prepped images using both methods and I think the PDF method looks a lot better after subsequent output sharpening for the web.
Both work fine in print, having compared 11x17 work prints. I have very large prints using both and I need to compare them. I think I'll probably prefer the initially more aggressive PDF method as I don't use the Super Sharpeners as you outlined in a Digital Photo Pro article a while back for large inkjet prints (that was your article, yes?).
Have you refined your large inkjet print approach since that article?
Also, it's nice to know PG is anticipating the new 1Ds3. Have you done any shooting with the 1D3 yet? Was wondering if the 14 bit processing and increased tonal gradation are making that much difference. Certainly others (Michael, Rob Galbaith) are praising the image files pretty highly and I would think this would mean great things for the new 1Ds!
-
The Epson X800 series printers, and the series of the generation before it, rasterize image file data at 360 PPI. That is the meaning of "native resolution"
If you want to know the PPI value expected from printer driver, go to http://www.photoresampling.com/index_eng.php (http://www.photoresampling.com/index_eng.php) and download for free PrinterData. For quality printing Epsone PPI value is 720.
And just to be clear, the print drivers don't do interpolation so much as use an error diffusion algorithm to form dots...
This is a general misconception.
PPI are different from DPI. Error diffusion is to simulate to human eyes a color. Dithering is a process performed at DPI level on paper as soon as a pixel color is sampled. Image sampling is performed at PPI level.
Jacopo
-
For quality printing Epsone PPI value is 720.
Jacopo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117724\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is incorrect - at least for the Epson 4800. Epson ProGraphics has confirmed to me that 360 PPI is the value at which image file data is rasterized. If more than this is sent to the printer the printer software has an algorithm which "smartly" discards excess information.
(This of course has nothing to do with whether one selects 720, 1440 or 2880 DPI as the ink coverage setting.)
-
This is incorrect - at least for the Epson 4800. Epson ProGraphics has confirmed to me that 360 PPI is the value at which image file data is rasterized. If more than this is sent to the printer the printer software has an algorithm which "smartly" discards excess information.
(This of course has nothing to do with whether one selects 720, 1440 or 2880 DPI as the ink coverage setting.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117756\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you are right. I know that Epson fixed 720 PPI for best quality on desktop printer and 360 PPI for large format printer.
Jacopo
-
From my unscientific testing, I could not conclude that it makes any observable difference. To claim that "prints will dramatically improve" would suggest that in a blind test, either the printer or a panel of viewers can EASILY tell the difference. I doubt very much either would be the case.
No, it's not "debunked", but we should be sure what we're talking about. The Epson X800 series printers, and the series of the generation before it, rasterize image file data at 360 PPI. That is the meaning of "native resolution". You know it is doing this is if you send a file to the printer that is not 360 PPI. There is one school of thought that we should have Photoshop resample the files to 360 before sending them to print, and another school that says it doesn't matter what you send to the printer between say 240 and 480, you won't see a quality difference on paper without a loupe. I have tested this on letter sized and A3 prints and my observations generally tend to support the latter position. But there is another factor at work here for those of us who use it: PK Sharpener. As we know, the Inkjet Output Sharpener has a number of discrete settings: 180, 240, 300, 360 and 480. Ideally, one's image PPI should be at one of those settings for the most accurate sharpening, because the calculations were done for those settings and file sizes. However, Pixelgenius has advised me in the past that fine results are obtained using the nearest setting to the file size within their ranges. Bottom line: in principle a case can be made that lining everything up from Output Sharpening to Printing at 360 may deliver the best print quality from these series of Epson printers, but not doing so will still deliver very high print quality - the differences don't jump out at you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
From my unscientific testing, I could not conclude that it makes any observable difference. To claim that "prints will dramatically improve" would suggest that in a blind test, either the printer or a panel of viewers can EASILY tell the difference. I doubt very much either would be the case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The prints can be better not dramatically better, but some detail may be better viewed.
Of course the improvement depends on the scene and on the resampling algorithm too.
PhotoShop cannot be considered as top level resampler.
Jacopo
-
PhotoShop cannot be considered as top level resampler.
Jacopo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you are talking about the time before Adobe developed Bi-Cubic Sharper and Bi-Cubic Smoother that may have been true, but since these algorithms were developed I think there is a broad spectrum of professional opinion that Photoshop resamples at least as well as anything else on the market, provided the operator uses those tools correctly.
-
You are a lot better off using the image's "native resolution" (which is also a bit of a misnomer) and sharpening for the actual resolution sent to the printer.
How do you compute the "native resolution" of an image?
-
Mark :
Are you saying there is no need for another sharpener plug-in in CS 3? I've just installed CS 3 on my iMac G5 (PPC) and am in a quandry about purchasing a sharpener plug-in for it. BTW the HP B9180 plug-in for CS2 is not transportable(?) to CS3. And with the extended version, it would appear I can get around video noise at high ISOs by merging several exposures without the need of a noise plug-in.
Ken
-
Kenneth,
The remark I made three posts back is not about sharpening, it is about resampling images when "Resample" is checked in the Image Size Dialogue box - that is, changing the image dimensions at a fixed resolution (resolution defined as PPI) or fixing the dimensions and changing the PPI, or selecting any combination of dimensions and PPI which differs from that obtained without checking the resample box, but sticking with the "image native resolution" - i.e. whatever Photoshop calculates it to be as you finalize an image's dimensions. The term "BiCubic Sharper" is the name given to a resampling process for "down-rezzing" and BiCubic Smoother for "up-rezzing". I was saying that Photoshop's algorithms for resample are said to be as good as any.
-
Well this topic started off originally as a discussion of a couple of different methods of capture sharpening both pioneered by Jeff Schewe and Bruce Frazier.
As to the need for sharpening plug-ins, I can't imagine being without Photokit SHarpener and its innovative three-pass sharpening methodology. I try and keep track of what the pro's pros are using and it would appear there's a very good consensus for some form of multiple pass sharpening that takes into account capture and output devices.
Jeff has an invaluable article/tutorial on three-pass sharpening that I had access to as an Epson Print Academy participant. I have it downloaded as a PDF and pass it on to my digital darkroom students religiously. I'm not sure where it can be accessed without a Print Academy participant's user name and password but maybe Jeff will make this informative article available to LL forum members?
An alternate would be to download the free trial version of PKS (www.pixelgenius.com) and with it the detailed 38 pg. PDF that covers much of the same ground.
-
Here's a recent image using all three sharpening passes (capture; creative; output). Especially useful on this hazy, late afternoon shot at Desert View in the Grand Canyon was the creative sharpening brush called Hazecutter. From what I understand it's a fairly aggressive edge sharper that also compensates for the increase in blue/cyan light from particulate matter in the air by adding a warming color correction.
Just one of the many tools as your disposal in PKS! I agree with Michael in that until something better comes along, they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands!! Enjoy . . .
(http://k53.pbase.com/o6/10/364410/1/78832590.9bqB9Dzo._P7D3433copy.jpg)
-
Jeff has an invaluable article/tutorial on three-pass sharpening that I had access to as an Epson Print Academy participant.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=118047\")
Well, that particular PDF is still kinda locked to the Academy...but you can get the gist of my PDF by reading Bruce's article on Creative Pro. See: [a href=\"http://www.creativepro.com:80/story/feature/20357-1.html]Out of Gamut: Thoughts on a Sharpening Workflow[/url]
-
I would also highly recommend Bruce's book "Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2".
-
I think you are right. I know that Epson fixed 720 PPI for best quality on desktop printer and 360 PPI for large format printer.
Jacopo
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=117819\")
"Native resolution" of Epson printers is often quoted as 720*2880 or 1440*5760 dots per inch, but these printers use error diffusion dithering and the relationship of dots to pixels is fairly indirect, but it takes many dots to make a pixel. The above resolution numbers describe the accuracy with which the individual dots making up the pixel are placed on the paper.
According to tests done by Bruce Fraser and reported in Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop CS2 there is a slight advantage to sending up to 480 ppi of suitably sharpened data to the printer, and above that value, there is very little benefit from a higher pixel resolution. Sending more than 720 ppi to the printer may actually degrade image quality.
If you print high contrast line pair targets at even multiples of the printer's native resolution (often said to be 360 ppi) there may be some slight advantage, but Bruce reported that the difference is minimal with most real world images and he simply sends the image to the printer at capture resolution in most cases.
If you do print high contrast line patterns at resolutions unequal to the native resolution of the printer, you often get an interference pattern from aliasing, much as you can get Moire when taking pictures of fabrics if your camera has a weak or no blur filter. [a href=\"http://www.rags-int-inc.com/]Rags Gardner[/url] has done some tests with the Epson 2200 printer and has determined that the native resolution of the printer is actually 288 ppi rather than the oft quoted 360.
When an orchestra tunes up, it does so with an A tone from the oboe (440 Hz). If the instrument being tuned has a different frequency, a beat results and the pitch of the instrument is changed until there is no beat. The same principle applies in optics.
Bill
-
"Native resolution" of Epson printers is often quoted as 720*2880 or 1440*5760 dots per inch, but these printers use error diffusion dithering and the relationship of dots to pixels is fairly indirect, but it takes many dots to make a pixel. The above resolution numbers describe the accuracy with which the individual dots making up the pixel are placed on the paper.
You are speaking about DPI. I'm speaking about PPI.
DPI=PPI (just as value, not as definition) only for contone printers or monitors.
Dithering is for DPI.
PrinterData is an application that connects to the printer driver and get the manufacturer settings. That's the way to know exactly at what PPI value the driver works.
I'm not so happy to define a "native resolution" as I experienced that PPI value may change depending on quality and on borderless settings.
Jacopo
-
My general suggestion is:
Set your printer preference
Verify the driver PPI value
Crop and Resample with best algorithm to the driver PPI
Print
The benefits are sometime little? Who cares, I have to fix a workflow!
Jacopo
-
You are speaking about DPI. I'm speaking about PPI.
DPI=PPI (just as value, not as definition) only for contone printers or monitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Please re-read my post and take some remedial reading lessons if necessary. I was clearly speaking about both DPI and PPI and their relationship. In a Postscript halftone, the relationship between the two is straight forward. With a color ink jet printer the details of the relationship are usually proprietary. I made no mention of contone printers or monitors, since they were not involved in the discussion.
Dithering is for DPI.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did not state if the dithering is applied to dots or pixels, so I don't know why you brought up this topic.
PrinterData is an application that connects to the printer driver and get the manufacturer settings. That's the way to know exactly at what PPI value the driver works.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did download PrinterData. It gives the PPI value for the default printer, in my case a HP Color Laserjet. It gives a value of 600 PPI for the printer, but does not tell me if the printer uses some type of error diffusion dither or half toning.
For my Epson 2200, it gives me a value of 360 PPI, which agrees with Bruce Fraser's figure in the sharpening book. However, this value is of no use to me, since I follow Bruce's advice (and also that of Jeff Schewe) and send the digital file, suitably sharpened, directly to the printer without any resampling. There is no need to resample the image to 360 PPI-- Jeff has stated that this can do more harm than good
I'm not so happy to define a "native resolution" as I experienced that PPI value may change depending on quality and on borderless settings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Native resolution of what? The capture? The printer?
Bill
-
Here's a recent image using all three sharpening passes (capture; creative; output). Especially useful on this hazy, late afternoon shot at Desert View in the Grand Canyon was the creative sharpening brush called Hazecutter. From what I understand it's a fairly aggressive edge sharper that also compensates for the increase in blue/cyan light from particulate matter in the air by adding a warming color correction.
Just one of the many tools as your disposal in PKS! I agree with Michael in that until something better comes along, they'll have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands!! Enjoy .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dabreeze,
A great picture, but without any before and after comparison, I do not know if this is due to your photographic skills or to the magic of PKSharpener.
According to Bruce's sharpening book, Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Phtotoshop CS2, the haze cutting brush is an adaption of his Depth of Field Brush. The latter uses an unsharp mask with amount = 500%, radius = 4 pixels and threshold = 0 followed by use of the highpass filter with a radius of 25 pixels. This is done on a layer whose blending mode is set to Overlay, Opacity = 50%, and with blend-if sliders set to give protection to the shadows and highlights. He considers it to be a combination between conventional sharpening and a mid-tone contrast boost. The haze brush adds a warming filter. That's what he described in the book, but he might not divulge any trade secrets used in the commercial product.
PKSharpener is a great product and time saver, but I think that it is worthwhile to buy the sharpening book to gain an understanding of the principles of Bruce's sharpening workflow even if you are a happy user of the commercial product.
To boost midtone contrast Bruce used the High Pass filter with a high radius setting (30-50 pixels) in an layer with a blending mode of Overlay. Others use the conventional unsharp mask with a high radius and low amount. Dan Margulis calls this "hiraloam". For your Grand Canyon shots you might want to take a look at his book Photoshop Lab Color.
Bill
-
Please re-read my post and take some remedial reading lessons if necessary.
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
When people start with offences....he is in deep difficulty.
You quoted:
I know that Epson fixed 720 PPI
and then you start to speak in DPI terms with some magic black to PPI.....
but does not tell me if the printer uses some type of error diffusion dither or half toning.
This information is not exposed by the printer driver, sorry. You may ask to Microsoft and printer manufacturer to implement it, but untill now I'm not able to pick up such info.
"Native resolution" of Epson printers is often quoted as 720*2880 or 1440*5760 dots per inch
If you print high contrast line pair targets at even multiples of the printer's native resolution (often said to be 360 ppi)
You use the same term for different things.
I'm intersted only in PPI value used by the the driver. I can't have any influence in PPI to DPI process.
However, this value is of no use to me, since I follow Bruce's advice (and also that of Jeff Schewe) and send the digital file, suitably sharpened, directly to the printer without any resampling
You are free to do every thing you like!
There is no need to resample the image to 360 PPI-- Jeff has stated that this can do more harm than good.
I don't agree at all. Jeff statment han no any scientific basis: he is stating that nearest neighbor is better than a smart resampling algorithm!
Jacopo
-
There is no need to resample the image to 360 PPI-- Jeff has stated that this can do more harm than good
Native resolution of what? The capture? The printer?
Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=118184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bill, There is no "need" to resample to 360, but depending on when and how done it could be marginally helpful if only because it alligns the PK Output Sharpener setting with the corresponding PPI in the image file. I've tested this issue with and without PK Sharpener with and without an exact 360 going to the printer - without a loupe the differences don't hit you in the face; staring very hard at the comparison photos sometimes one sees a slight advantage to lining everything up at 360 for an Epson wide-format printer. The kind of detail in the image probably affects these comparisons one way or another.
-
Thanks Bill for the kind comments and constructive criticism. Good info on Bruce's books and for sure i should get it and read it. I've read all of Ron Bigelow's fine series on sharpening as well as jeff's and PKS' PDFs. So I understand the basics fairly well.
I used both the haze cutter in certain areas of the middle ground on this and as I do on almost every image, made a visible stamp of the underlying layers and applied Michael's Local Contrast Enhancement (USM @ 20, 50, 0) and vary the opacity to taste. With this I'll occasionally use the blend if mode as well to prevent too much additional black from being introduced.
Basically, this is almost interchangeable with the Mac Holbert high pass method of mid-tone boost which I think is almost the same as the Bruce method you described.
You're very definitely right though about getting Bruce's book eventually and gaining even more knowledge of this most crucial of post-processing skills.
As for the question of photographic skill vs. PP knowledge, you guessed it, it's PKS alone that made the magic!! LOL!! Even more reason to rush out and get it!
really, i think both are part and parcel of the same ability these days as a digital photographer. ansel was a genius in the field and moreso in the darkroom. without a good starting point (composition, light, exposure, focus, subject) you're sunk. Good PP is just surmounting the limitations of the media and optimizing the beauty that you found before you.
I'm a traditionalist in that I believe the true art of the landscape photographer is finding the moment (and the huge effort and skill set that entails) and capturing it well. Nature and the universe are the true master artists and too much creative license, for my taste, is just too self-absorbed. creative license has its place in almost all aspects of photography and i love and applaud people's art. it's just that when it comes to the landscape, i think we should be attentive to the beauty that exists.
Sure, I'm guilty as any in sometimes over-romanticizing nature. but we've all been trained over the last three decades to expect our landscapes to have punch, immediacy, vibrancy, and saleability (thank you velvia!) and it may be some time before the infinitely more real and documentary (variable and more accurate WB is just one example), wider gamut, and arguably less saturated potential of digital comes to be accepted as the standard.
Until then, large format film photographers and their film stocks will continue to set the standard and we will romanticize to the point of velvia and no further (!!) lest we be accused of overcooking in PS!! Some day we may return to the less saturated, wider gamut film color style of say Elliot Porter whose seminal work in the 40s-60s seems these days much flatter and less immediate. I saw a wonderful retrospective exhibition in LA last year and that was my first impression. After that, I began to appreciate the incredible subtlety and nuanced color palette but once trained to velvia, it's hard to untrain the mind's and eye's expectations!!
We could probably start a whole thread on this topic alone . . . But this one's been hijacked enough from my original post what the heck!! LOL