montsnmags@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Moose wrote:
>
>> ...
>>
>> The R-L processing is interesting and, in the example, clearly a bit better
>> than USM. But lets get right down to it. Anyone interested in this stuff,
>> I'd appreciate your votes on the alternates here.
>> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ARL_Sharp/Fox.htm
>>
>> Problems I see with his presentation and examples ...
>>
>
> Simply looking at the on-screen examples provided, while also noting the
> problems you specify, to my eye the R-L processed image is the best of them,
> though it's a fine line between it and "Moose Pass 2B".
>
It seems to me that they are only very slightly different, and
unfortunately, the color difference is a problem - not of my making. I
don't think one would ever see the difference in a print or practical
crop for the web.
The key point is that the R-L processing for the full image took 1.5
hours, while what I did was essentially instantaneous on the sample and
would be only a few seconds for the whole image.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|