Re: unsharp mask?
- From: ck183@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Brendan R. Wehrung)
- Date: 15 Jul 2005 05:08:38 GMT
Kennedy McEwen (rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> In article <2q1bd1178t8no8ic971tqnodohe76r2t67@xxxxxxx>, Hecate
> <hecate@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
>>On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 02:42:06 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
>><rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If you want to learn why they are no different in performance to USM
>>>then look for any *good* book on image processing, not restricted to the
>>>application of Photoshop.
>>
>>I'm not interested in the use of these filters except and insofar as
>>they apply to Photoshop and no professional I know, or have read,
>>wants anything to do with them, and nor do I. Personal experience,
>>plus the experience written by others leads me to conclude that whilst
>>you may be right in theory, in practice the PS sharpening filters,
>>apart from USM, are worse than useless.
>>
> If you take the same attitude with all of the Photoshop features then
> you will not want anything to do with any of them - for example, all you
> have to do is take a look at a few 'Photoshopped' images on the net and
> you will quickly find examples which have been ruined by inappropriate
> or excessive use of USM. The fact that a filter can be used badly does
> not mean they are "worse than useless", simply that the user doesn't
> know what they are or what they are doing.
>
> You may not be interested in finding out, and that is fine - there are
> plenty of tools in PS that many users avoid completely because they have
> a preferred workflow or no need for the use. But to publicly condemn a
> tool because you have no interest in using it is complete arrogance.
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
I don't use Photoshop, but avoid most filters in other programs
because they are so gross in their treatment of photos--as in can only be
applied to heavily, losing definition of what the original was. I find
that the size of the untouched photo has a lot to do with how successful
the effect is. I will say that Earlier Adobe filters (from the PS5 era,
that work with Paint Shop Pro, are better than what PSP provides, and use
them in preference to PSPs. Unsharp mask isn't really an effect, but I
can sympathize with the frustation of wanting something to work and not
being able to get a good-looking result. One of my favorite tricks with
PSP is to use "edge preserving smooth" (under Noise) then "sharpen more"
(which would usually outline everything so heavily that the photo looks
phony) when I have a photo that is a little blurred. If you don't look
close sometimes the result is acceptable.
Brendan
--
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: unsharp mask?
- From: Kennedy McEwen
- Re: unsharp mask?
- References:
- unsharp mask?
- From: Louise
- Re: unsharp mask?
- From: Kennedy McEwen
- unsharp mask?
- Prev by Date: Vuescan RAW files Black and White
- Next by Date: Re: Minolta 5400 Mark I scanning time (was Re: Minolta 5400 or Coolscan V)
- Previous by thread: Re: unsharp mask?
- Next by thread: Re: unsharp mask?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
