On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 12:14:15AM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
> 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.
>
well, gimp developers are not known for being polite in all situations.
pointing ou
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
Hi,
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 us
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 th
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 03:00:01PM -0700, carol wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 10:33:33PM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
> >
> > > what did you use for haze removal?
> >
> > USM with radius 60, amount 0.30 and threshold 1.
> >
> with
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 10:33:33PM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
>
> > what did you use for haze removal?
>
> USM with radius 60, amount 0.30 and threshold 1.
>
without having the chance (or a photo handy) to check this with, are you
ce
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 01:05:29PM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:
> what did you use for haze removal?
USM with radius 60, amount 0.30 and threshold 1.
--
Steve Crane
http://craniac.afraid.org
___
Gimp-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.b
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 08:57:46PM +0200, Steve Crane wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 08:18:14AM -0700, William Skaggs wrote:
>
> > Does Photoshop do it a lot faster with the same parameters?
>
> Very much so. I created a panorama earlier this evening and ran it
> through the workflow action I'
On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 08:18:14AM -0700, William Skaggs wrote:
> Does Photoshop do it a lot faster with the same parameters?
Very much so. I created a panorama earlier this evening and ran it
through the workflow action I'm porting to GIMP and the haze removal
step took only a few seconds, and
Steve Crane wrote:
> I am adapting a workflow from a Photoshop action and there is one step
> that does haze removal with USM using radius 60, amount 0.30 and
> threshold 1, that is extremely slow. I just timed it on a 94.4MB 4048x3040
> photograph and it took 3 minutes, 50 seconds.
That sounds
10 matches
Mail list logo
