[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-08-17 at 1052.52 +0200):
> 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?
I tried levels 20 1.0 235 and USM 25 .3 1 in the first image of
http://www.lonestardigital.com/photoshop_quicktips.htm and while the
results look similar, the histogram shows periodic holes (predictable
from levels), so problably that is the reason the action Steve is
porting used USM. Maybe he should give a look at USM code and try to
emulate with blur and other ops.
Gimp-user mailing list