confused
im getting really confused with the language regarding the seagull example. Top of the wings, top half, lower half. When Dan said lower half of the seagull did he mean the whitish outline the bird has underneath the wings and in the tail feathers?
I also get confused when he talked about the differences. He said something like figure A shows the difference between the blurred version and the original version where the original is darker than the blurred. There is then the line that he shows us.
Does that mean the line is where the original starts getting darker versus the blurred? So everything past that line is darker in the original? Is this like everything within that line?
His words to also describe the halo is confusing me....he said that the top of the wings is darker so the darker line is within the wings, when i look at the figure the darker like is actually outside the wings and the lighter line is actually very near the outline of the wings....
also does this mean that when i blurred the original image, certain parts of the image actually got darker and certain parts of the image got lighter?
darnit, im typing all these and when i read it, it was more confusing than the actual text, did anyone even understand my predicament?
sorry if im a bit inaccurate, the book is at home and im at work...pretending to work hehehe. kidding, im typing this after work (just in case my boss drops by here)
im getting really confused with the language regarding the seagull example. Top of the wings, top half, lower half. When Dan said lower half of the seagull did he mean the whitish outline the bird has underneath the wings and in the tail feathers?
I also get confused when he talked about the differences. He said something like figure A shows the difference between the blurred version and the original version where the original is darker than the blurred. There is then the line that he shows us.
Does that mean the line is where the original starts getting darker versus the blurred? So everything past that line is darker in the original? Is this like everything within that line?
His words to also describe the halo is confusing me....he said that the top of the wings is darker so the darker line is within the wings, when i look at the figure the darker like is actually outside the wings and the lighter line is actually very near the outline of the wings....
also does this mean that when i blurred the original image, certain parts of the image actually got darker and certain parts of the image got lighter?
darnit, im typing all these and when i read it, it was more confusing than the actual text, did anyone even understand my predicament?
sorry if im a bit inaccurate, the book is at home and im at work...pretending to work hehehe. kidding, im typing this after work (just in case my boss drops by here)
Yup, he's confusing. And, the entire idea of sharpening, based on a low resolution device (your display), using only one round of sharpening (for what?) doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead, the work by the late Bruce Fraser does:
Here's the thing: Dan teaches techniques which might be flawed or outdated, but he also teaches the underlying principles behind them. If you understand how things work, then you can also improvise new techniques to suit. So when you get confused by the details in Dan's writing, it's always a good idea to take a step back and make sure you have the big picture.
The big picture in this chapter is that you'd like to apply as much USM of both kinds (conventional and HIRALOAM) as you can get away with. And you can get away with more if you really understand how each works, if you apply to different channels, if you use various masking techniques, &etc.
Yup, he's confusing. And, the entire idea of sharpening, based on a low resolution device (your display), using only one round of sharpening (for what?) doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead, the work by the late Bruce Fraser does:
The big picture in this chapter is that you'd like to apply as much USM of both kinds (conventional and HIRALOAM) as you can get away with.
Get away for what? To overcome capture or for output? If output, what device and from what size original? Using the low resolution display as a guide?
Outdated? Yup. Read Bruce's piece. Treating sharpening as a one size fits all technique doesn't wash. You simply can't treat a 50mb image going out to a halftone dot the same way as a 20mb image going out to an ink jet. And what you see isn't what you get.
big picture
big picture is clear to me, the devil is in the details so they say and i feel that understanding the dark and white halos is the key thing to understand regrding sharpening. A monkey can open up the USM dialog and fiddle through the numbers but what i want to understand is how the hell are those dark halos and white halos come up. I want to look at a picture and say that if i blur this then the white halos will be around here and the dark ones would be here. That if i use a bigger dark halo then the sharpening would be better but using a wider white will now make the picture fake. This is the primary reason why i wanna hammer through this piece of text i just feel that the whole chapter is actually in those few paragraphs and understanding them would mean finally understanding sharpening.
ill try the link provided thanks so much for helping me power myself through this tough text.
I have found that when it comes to using HiRaLoAm Sharpening that it should not be the last thing that you do. I have found sometimes if I first set my end points of light and dark points of the histogram say in the luminosity channel of LAB. If I then do a HiRaLoAm move, I will tend to blow out highlights and plug darks because of the way it increases local contrast in the image. I then have no way of recapturing this detail. I think HiRaLoAm should be done before you set your histogram end points to avoid this. Anyone else agree with this?
Comments
I can sign to that:-)
im getting really confused with the language regarding the seagull example. Top of the wings, top half, lower half. When Dan said lower half of the seagull did he mean the whitish outline the bird has underneath the wings and in the tail feathers?
I also get confused when he talked about the differences. He said something like figure A shows the difference between the blurred version and the original version where the original is darker than the blurred. There is then the line that he shows us.
Does that mean the line is where the original starts getting darker versus the blurred? So everything past that line is darker in the original? Is this like everything within that line?
His words to also describe the halo is confusing me....he said that the top of the wings is darker so the darker line is within the wings, when i look at the figure the darker like is actually outside the wings and the lighter line is actually very near the outline of the wings....
also does this mean that when i blurred the original image, certain parts of the image actually got darker and certain parts of the image got lighter?
darnit, im typing all these and when i read it, it was more confusing than the actual text, did anyone even understand my predicament?
sorry if im a bit inaccurate, the book is at home and im at work...pretending to work hehehe. kidding, im typing this after work (just in case my boss drops by here)
Yup, he's confusing. And, the entire idea of sharpening, based on a low resolution device (your display), using only one round of sharpening (for what?) doesn't make a lot of sense. Instead, the work by the late Bruce Fraser does:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html
And going further, is his book, Real World Sharpening in Photoshop. But start with the web article above, its easy, clear reading!
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The big picture in this chapter is that you'd like to apply as much USM of both kinds (conventional and HIRALOAM) as you can get away with. And you can get away with more if you really understand how each works, if you apply to different channels, if you use various masking techniques, &etc.
Get away for what? To overcome capture or for output? If output, what device and from what size original? Using the low resolution display as a guide?
Outdated? Yup. Read Bruce's piece. Treating sharpening as a one size fits all technique doesn't wash. You simply can't treat a 50mb image going out to a halftone dot the same way as a 20mb image going out to an ink jet. And what you see isn't what you get.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
big picture is clear to me, the devil is in the details so they say and i feel that understanding the dark and white halos is the key thing to understand regrding sharpening. A monkey can open up the USM dialog and fiddle through the numbers but what i want to understand is how the hell are those dark halos and white halos come up. I want to look at a picture and say that if i blur this then the white halos will be around here and the dark ones would be here. That if i use a bigger dark halo then the sharpening would be better but using a wider white will now make the picture fake. This is the primary reason why i wanna hammer through this piece of text i just feel that the whole chapter is actually in those few paragraphs and understanding them would mean finally understanding sharpening.
ill try the link provided thanks so much for helping me power myself through this tough text.