What the title says ☝
this question is for data already stretched and all that, and also already deconvoluted with BXT during the linear stage
I would like to use photoshop for this because of how easy it is to make quick masks in photoshop.
I just think Unsharp Mask by itself, seems too crude and simple, and doesn't benefit the image much in my experience
what is your opinion on doing this/your methods?
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I generally dont do any sharpening at all other than blurx in the linear stage.
im a lazy processor so if i do want to sharpen ill do a little masked sharpen with lightroom. This is very rare though, i dont find much desire to sharpen more than the result from blurx.
I do often add LHE when non linear, which to the eye looks like its sharper by increasing the contrast.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Chris White- Overcast Observatory:
I generally dont do any sharpening at all other than blurx in the linear stage.
im a lazy processor so if i do want to sharpen ill do a little masked sharpen with lightroom. This is very rare though, i dont find much desire to sharpen more than the result from blurx.
I do often add LHT when non linear, which to the eye looks like its sharper by increasing the contrast. thanks for the info, never looked into using LHT before
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
LHT is a contrast booster and it can add impact but it's not a sharpening method. I sometimes use MultiscaleLinearTransform to enhance small features. It can be very effective but only in small amounts. It will make a mess if you overdo it. It produces a very similar result to high-pass filtering in Photoshop.
John
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I rarely do any sharpening past the linear stage. For certain galaxies, if I've resolved the stars, I will occasionally use LHE (which I think is what John meant, not LHT) to boost the constrast on small scales… but unsharp mask is almost never used.
Simply put, beyond BlurX in the linear stage, you're just cooking your data.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
John Hayes:
LHT is a contrast booster and it can add impact but it's not a sharpening method. I sometimes use MultiscaleLinearTransform to enhance small features. It can be very effective but only in small amounts. It will make a mess if you overdo it. It produces a very similar result to high-pass filtering in Photoshop.
John thank you, I'll look into using MLT
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
BXT in the linear stage, and the unsharp masking in Photoshop in the nonlinear stage. In my processing workflow, I would say that the two probably contribute equally to the final sharpness.
BXT is deconvolution, so essentially it only sharpens the image at scales comparable to the PSF size. But actually there are different scales in an image that are worth sharpening (or amplifying). Unsharp masking and PI tools such as the multiscale transform that John mentioned allow you to work on different scales other than the one particularly effective in BXT. So I think it's equally important to sharpen/amplify features at the PSF scale and other scales.
BTW, when I run unsharp masking in Photoshop, I often remove the stars first. And I also often only apply the results to the brighter parts of the subject where S/N is higher.
BTW2, Photoshop's fading function after unsharp masking allows you to only amplify the positive part (lighten) or negative part (darken) of the features. That can be very useful.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
thx Wei-Hao Wang, and Brian Puhl for your responses I'm a little shocked I have never used LHE, or MLT, they look pretty powerful https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS3Gpx75hhU&t=3720s |
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Like @John Hayes , I use a gentle touch of multiscale transformation, but median rather than linear. I posted my process some time ago on Stargazers Lounge. It can also be used to enhance colour saturation locally, by applying it to chrominance rather than RGB or luminance. I prefer MMT over LHE as a local contrast enhancement tool, because it gives me better control. cheers, Wim
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I used to do MLT but it was such a drag to get the exact balancing right so I'm not using it anymore, just UM. In PI. Using anything else is strictly haram in my book.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I’ll add another vote for MLT, though I haven’t played with MMT so will give that a shot. Anyhow, eight layers and generally amounts less than 0.1 in just the first three.
Cheers,
Scott
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
Hi guys! As for me I use LHE as a first enhancing after stretching (I do this just on the nebulosity after removing stars) and I run it two times: I play with the kernel radius trying to find the sweet spot in the range 160-300 and 30-90 and very low amount. Then I usually use the classic "Deconvolution" process that I still find very useful. Depending on the picture I also try some high pass filter in Photoshop.
Ciao,
Gaetano
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
I use LHE and MLT, both with a luminance mask.
|
You cannot like this item. Reason: "ANONYMOUS".
You cannot remove your like from this item.
Editing a post is only allowed within 24 hours after creating it.
You cannot Like this post because the topic is closed.
Copy the URL below to share a direct link to this post.
This post cannot be edited using the classic forums editor.
To edit this post, please enable the "New forums experience" in your settings.
