On 4/12/2014 4:53 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> That much I think I understand (independent of the skills required).
> But my main problem with Focus Magic is that I usually haven't been able
> to get the main part of the out of focus image to respond adequately to
> make the follow-on layer work of any value.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. Perhaps we use it differently. I would consider
anything as OOF as the old soldier to be
beyond recovery for anything but a pretty small image.
I've played with it little now. A masked mix of radii 2, 3 and 4 does a pretty
fair job up to about 2/3 size, but at
100%, it's not very good. If it were my gramps, I'd still like it, but ...
I use FM for much more subtle OOF adjustment on my own images. I usually apply
NeatImage, which often adds a little
sharpness from resharpening at lower ISOs. Then a bit of FM, most often radius
1 or 2. So capture sharpening is often
two step, a mix of whatever NI does (USM?) and FM.
Then I use FM for resharpening after re-sampling down, mostly radius 1, almost
never 100% opacity, not uncommonly masked
layers with different radius and/or opacity.
I know FM advertises with examples that seem to promise more capability than is
really there for folks like us. But if
you look at the oceans of stuff on the web, that kind of rough effect may be a
vast improvement for viewing small.
Sharpish Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|