Interesting you say that. I actually tried applying sharpening back several years ago and the result was an image that looked like a cooked digitally processed image to me. Too sterile? And yes, I am well versed in PS and various sharpening tools. I discarded my changes, returned the shot to where it was and I’m completely satisfied with the look and feel of the final treatment. This image has been printed on various art paper, canvas and metal in a variety of sizes and folks seemed to be pleased.

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not offended in any way with your suggestion, (I even tried it myself years ago), but it just reinforces my attitude that computer monitors and digital editing signaled the end of appreciating a printed image. I use all sorts of digital pp tricks on my pics including sharpening, noise abatement, color adjustment, exposure mods, etc, but it’s nice to remember that a printed photo, viewed from a distance appropriate to the size of the print, can often stand on its own.

My wife tells me I’m a crotchety old man (she’s right by the way - mea culpa) so forgive me for my backward look to the good old days. There are folks who spend their days photographing brick walls to test their new lenses for edge distortion, rather than actually take photos to see if it matters. Sure - new computer designed and ground glass, amazing lens coatings and more and more ED glass elements permit extraordinary new lenses and I own my share, but I still use a few lenses from the late 1950’s and they still create just gorgeous images. I recently used a new Nikon 105/2.8 VR,ED,A,B,C,D E lens to do some portrait work. RAZOR sharp and I’ll bet a brick wall would look terrific. But it couldn’t hold a candle to my almost 55 yr old MF 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor. I can’t point to a specific reason why. The older lens just “renders” (remember that word?) the scene better.

Ok - old man rant over. I appreciate your comment nevertheless.