Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Kevin McMurtrie |
| Date | 09/15/2014 06:13 (09/14/2014 21:13) |
| Message-ID | <mcmurtrie-C47D38.21132214092014@news.sonic.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Alfred Molon |
| Followups | Floyd L. Davidson (1h & 18m) > Kevin McMurtrie Alfred Molon (1h & 58m) |
In article <MPG.2e7f6291cf0026d798cc0c@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>wrote:
Alfred MolonThe digital form of unsharp mask is the inverse of a blur. There's both a frequency (diameter) and an intensity.
In article <2014091316132932858-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck says...SavageduckAlfred Molon
...and what PP software, & what sharpening methods do you use? I am not going to advocate one application, or method over the other, I know what advice I can give with what I am familiar with in my workflow.
Isn't unsharp mask the same across all PP applications? I would have thought it's an algorithm which is implemented in various PP applications, or are there differences?
The fancier sharpening tools analyze an image and adapt the sharpening to different types of blur in the image. This handles minor focus problems, simple motion blur, and some of the radial blurring found in cheap lenses.
The super-fancy tools will trace camera shake and estimate a corrected image.
-- I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google because they host Usenet flooders.
09/13/2014-
