Patrick Chase
I basically agree, though your approach is far too reasonable to live up to its "100% sharpening perv" billing.

Science of Sharp (the blog you reference) on the other hand is the unquestioned benchmark for sharpening perviness.

Seriously, any diagnostic tool requires some judgment both with respect to what to capture and how to interpret the results. SEM shots can be great if you limit yourself to "meaningful" magnifications and/or ignore meaningless differences. The problem with scienceofsharp is that the author lost all perspective and went totally overboard.

I think that Leonard Lee's book is a good example of "SEM done right". He used the tool in a manner that leveraged its strengths (lack of specular "glint", favorable resolution/DoF tradeoffs) while avoiding the pitfalls of excessive resolution and over-interpretation.