The image is duplicated and the ‘High Pass’ filter applied to the duplicate layer with a radius of a few pixels. This is rather similar process to the above but takes a little more effort. The image below shows precisely this shown at ~400%, Smart Sharpen was applied to the brightness change in the top image to give the result below. Though ‘Smart Sharpen’ may be a little more sophisticated than Unsharp Mask Sharpening (and, it is said, applies one iteration of deconvolution sharpening) these effectively add ‘acutance’ to an image by increasing the ‘microcontrast’ at changes in brightness in the image if at an edge in an image the brightness went from a dark grey to a light grey, at the dark grey side it would be made darker and at the light grey side it would be made lighter so accentuating the difference. I think that it is worth briefly discussing the two former methodsĪs, later in the article, I will try to show some comparisons. Pleasingly, there are now available three free software programs that can carry out Deconvolution Sharpening. Ironically, the image resulting from its use, though showing more detail, may well not look sharper and so perhaps a little Actuance sharpening might be applied to give the best overall result. However, the latter does actually attempt to extract more detail out of the taken image and so is a true sharpening method. Though this might be pedantic, the former do not actually sharpen an image, they merely make it appear sharper. A further, distinct method is called ‘Wavelet Sharpening whilst a third, and the main topic of this article, is called ‘Deconvolution Sharpening’. I would class these as ‘Actuance’ sharpening methods. I guess I became a huge Fuji fanboy along the way.There are many methods of sharpening those included in Adobe Photoshop or Affinity Photo include ‘Unsharp Mask’, ‘Smart Sharpen’ and ‘High Pass Sharpening’. ![]() The APS-C sensor size across the entire line also means that high-quality glass is a bit more affordable, smaller, and lighter than some of the competition. It makes the best JPGs straight out of the camera I've ever seen. I stopped shooting RAW partly for this reason, but also because the JPG engine on Fuji kit is outstanding. Only Fuji's terrible software and commercial offerings like Lightroom do a decent job. Other posters commenting on RAW files are right, though - they're a pain because of the non-standard sensor. It's hard to explain exactly how, but the color rendition straight out of the camera on Fuji kit is also second to none. You need a tripod and some time, but I'm looking forward to playing with it. They also offer a pixel-combining mode now that shifts the sensor very small, precise amounts and then combines images to increase resolution up to 4x in the final result. The main advantages should be the 40 MP sensor (vs 26) and sensor-based image stabilization (introduced in the X-T4). It should come out in a few months, and cost a bit less than the X-H. I have an X-T3 now, I'm waiting for the X-T5. The tilting screen on the X-T line is also a better fit for still photography than the articulated one on the X-H lines. Having separate, physical controls for exposure compensation, speed, ISO, and aperture is a delight. ![]() The X-H handles nice, but as a still (amateur) photographer, the X-Ts are where it's at. ![]() ![]() I moved from Canon full frame to Fuji, because of the physical controls on the X-T line.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |