the first is very nice tho i would bump the contrast a few notches to give definition to what looks too flat at present.
the last one has me wondering what to look at
Very interesting location, I rather like the first one best. Always have had a thing for landscapes with very little sky, like the paintings of Anselm Keifer.
HerbChong wrote:
you haven't using very good sharpening filters. the best ones correct for diffraction.
Herb...
Whatever "filter" you might have used, you can't make diffraction less than what it is for a certain wavelength and f-stop. Sorry for giving advice that you clearly don't want. Good luck in the future.
yes, you can. you obviously haven't tried it or the math. it's not going to correct everything but a proper deconvolution sharpening filter knows what to do with diffraction if it knows the pixel pitch, crop factor, and f-stop.
Herb...
Makten wrote:
Whatever "filter" you might have used, you can't make diffraction less than what it is for a certain wavelength and f-stop. Sorry for giving advice that you clearly don't want. Good luck in the future.
i don't have detailed math but Fixerlabs.com has a filter you can download and try. the literature is a bit vague but you do some digging and testing and it definitely is doing it. it's not a panacea but you should be able to get better effects than just plain sharpening using Smart Sharpen. i've started shooting panoramas at smaller apertures than i would normally use.
Herb...
Avi B wrote:
Hi Herb, I'm interested in the math for this. Do you have some references that I can check out? Are these blind deconvolution filters then?
