Photoshop / Image processing question
Discussion
)If you are just getting into it though, and don't fancy a big software layout just yet (or don't fancy putting a dodgy copy on your PC) - one or two on here use the Gimp - which is free.
Bodo is always going on about it, so if you do a member search, you will quickly find a link.
Must admit - I use photoshop though
Rich
Bodo is always going on about it, so if you do a member search, you will quickly find a link.
Must admit - I use photoshop though
Rich
Thanks for the replies. I'm particularly curious about which filters you use in photoshop (or gimp) to get the best results. Would I be right in guessing that the Unsharpen gives some of the best?
The reason I ask is I'm developing some image processing algorithms and I'm keen to know which techniques the professionals find most useful.
Cheers
Kenny320
>> Edited by kenny320 on Tuesday 26th April 10:29
The reason I ask is I'm developing some image processing algorithms and I'm keen to know which techniques the professionals find most useful.
Cheers
Kenny320
>> Edited by kenny320 on Tuesday 26th April 10:29
There are many tools for this sort of work. Check out the fredmirranda software plugins for Adobe CS, all at www.fredmiranda.com/ it is also a very good site to find out and talk photography and cameras.
Neat image is okay, however airbrush Gem from Kodak labs is better and not as heavy handed as neat image.
http://argon.asf.com/asf/product.asp?pid=1000&tc=9999&catalog_name=ASF&category_name=Software+Plugins&product_id=AIR
good article here:
www.vividlight.com/articles/3715.htm
Don't get me wrong I like both and Neat is great but can be a bit too plasticy.
regards
David
Neat image is okay, however airbrush Gem from Kodak labs is better and not as heavy handed as neat image.
http://argon.asf.com/asf/product.asp?pid=1000&tc=9999&catalog_name=ASF&category_name=Software+Plugins&product_id=AIR
good article here:
www.vividlight.com/articles/3715.htm
Don't get me wrong I like both and Neat is great but can be a bit too plasticy.
regards
David
USM is a bit heavy handed sometimes, and you can get halos. There are several other methods for sharpening, including sharpening only the luminance channel, and high-pass sharpening. Also, the settings you use depend on the way that the image will be output, and it's difficult to see the effect of sharpening for inkjet output for example on a monitor.
I use Photokit Sharpener which has different settings for various input and output formats, and has been developed by some top notch Photoshop bods like Bruce Fraser.
I use Photokit Sharpener which has different settings for various input and output formats, and has been developed by some top notch Photoshop bods like Bruce Fraser.
Depending on the degree of sharpening required the unsharp mask tool is good or fred miranda's intellisharpen2 produces halo and noise free results.
From my experience noise ninja whips the crap out of neat image for noise reduction. Not only the quality of the output, but ease of use of the application. I dont know anyone who has used both that would disagree with that either.
Hope this helps.
Matt
From my experience noise ninja whips the crap out of neat image for noise reduction. Not only the quality of the output, but ease of use of the application. I dont know anyone who has used both that would disagree with that either.
Hope this helps.
Matt
A really good "sharpen" can require you to apply unsharp mask several times, at low sharpen percentages, but with different sizes.
Unsharp masking was developed in the "old" photographic days, whereby the print maker made a slightly out of focus faint print from the negative (but exactly the same size) and sandwiched the two together. The idea is that the intentionally blurry positive is effectively subtracted from the neg, so when it's printed up the result is a sharper pic.
Mike
Unsharp masking was developed in the "old" photographic days, whereby the print maker made a slightly out of focus faint print from the negative (but exactly the same size) and sandwiched the two together. The idea is that the intentionally blurry positive is effectively subtracted from the neg, so when it's printed up the result is a sharper pic.
Mike
ehasler said:
I use Photokit Sharpener which has different settings for various input and output formats, and has been developed by some top notch Photoshop bods like Bruce Fraser.
Yup, I've been using this for almost a year and would highly recommend it.
nomoregravy said:
From my experience noise ninja whips the crap out of neat image for noise reduction. Not only the quality of the output, but ease of use of the application. I dont know anyone who has used both that would disagree with that either.
Well strangely enough I have now and....
...it's not as cut and dried as one is better than the other. I'd say Noise Ninja makes a better fist of things straight out of the box and does generally win. But, NeatImage does have one trick I like. You can alter the noise reduction in frequency bands. You can reduce the high frequency amount and retain more fine detail.
So for everyday use I'd pick NN but for something special I'd try both.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff