Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 09/15/2014 07:31 (09/14/2014 21:31) |
| Message-ID | <87bnqh1mby.fld@barrow.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Kevin McMurtrie |
| Followups | nospam (27m) > Floyd L. Davidson Kevin McMurtrie (23h & 7m) |
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us>wrote:
Kevin McMurtrieNot the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.
In article <MPG.2e7f6291cf0026d798cc0c@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com>wrote:Alfred MolonKevin McMurtrie
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 digital form of unsharp mask is the inverse of a blur. There's both a frequency (diameter) and an intensity.
UnSharpMask is not reversible.
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.-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
The super-fancy tools will trace camera shake and estimate a corrected image.
09/13/2014-
