Steve Crane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 03:00:01PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
> > > USM with radius 60, amount 0.30 and threshold 1.
> > >
> > without having the chance (or a photo handy) to check this with, are you
> > certain that unsharp mask is better than using levels?
> As I explained in my original post I am in the progress of converting a
> Photoshop action that performs a workflow to process photos from
> specific cameras. This is just one of the steps it uses. As the step
> is quick in Photoshop and very slow in GIMP, I merely wondered if this
> was to be expected or the symptom of a problem. One of the other
> replies suggested that the large radius could be expected to make the
> USM filter slow as the algorithm had not been revised for some years and
> was perhaps not working as well as it could.
Steve, please don't be so ignorant. Carol has a point here. If unsharp
mask is slow, it makes sense to look for alternatives. There's no
point in sticking to your workflow if it turns out that the same
result can be better achieved differently. So, are you certain that
unsharp mask is better than using levels?
Gimp-user mailing list