On Tue, Aug 17, 2004 at 10:52:52AM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote: > Steve, please don't be so ignorant.
This seems a bit rude and uncalled for. > Carol has a point here. If unsharp > mask is slow, it makes sense to look for alternatives. Of course it does. > There's no > point in sticking to your workflow if it turns out that the same > result can be better achieved differently. I don't intend to, nor did I say I planned to. > So, are you certain that > unsharp mask is better than using levels? No. The point I was trying to make in my reply to Carol, and maybe I didn't put it across clearly, was the following. In general GIMP (in Linux) performs roughly the same as Photoshop (in Windows) on my machine. So when I found this one filter that is so much slower with the same settings I became curious, wondering if it is to be expected, due to the way GIMP handles USM. That is all. I was not saying I will blindly use the function because the workflow uses it. I was not saying that I won't look for alternatives. I was not saying that GIMP sucks or has a bug, merely asking for an opinion from those more knowledgeable than myself in the workings of the USM filter. I do appreciate Carol's pointing out an alternative. I sometimes feel though, that on mailing lists in general, a lot of friction could be avoided if we only answer what is asked, not what we think is being asked by trying to read between the lines. In response to Alan Horkan, it is the plug-in version that I'm using. Cheers. -- Steve Crane http://craniac.afraid.org _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
