[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. GSR _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
