Unsharp mask

[Jeremy_Waller]

Greetings Readers.,

I am running Affinity Photo 1.8.3.641 and attempted to use the "Unsharp Mask" for the first time on a high resolution image of the crescent moon.

Problem:

When I look at the preview image it looks excellent and the Unsharp Mask routine works very well - no problem. But when I try to apply the preview settings to the full size image nothing happens.

Perhaps somebody can tell me if I have done something wrong. Program setup preferences ?

Many thanks in advance,

Regards,

Jeremy

[John Rostron]

Are you looking at your sharpened image at full size (100%). Only this will give you the true picture?

John

[Jowday]

4 hours ago, Jeremy_Waller said:

Greetings Readers.,

I am running Affinity Photo 1.8.3.641 and attempted to use the "Unsharp Mask" for the first time on a high resolution image of the crescent moon.

Problem:

When I look at the preview image it looks excellent and the Unsharp Mask routine works very well - no problem. But when I try to apply the preview settings to the full size image nothing happens.

Perhaps somebody can tell me if I have done something wrong. Program setup preferences ?

Many thanks in advance,

Regards,

Jeremy

Try changing the rendering quality from high quality to bilinear in preferences. Under Performance.

I think High Quality alters the image so you don’t see the actual output even at 100% ... which is not acceptable or expected behavior.

 

[Jeremy_Waller]

Greetings Jowday and John,

Thanks for getting back to so promptly.

Jowday:  I tried your suggestion. I changed the rendering/interpolation and the screen view seemed to have changed at 100% view.

John : Yes! it does make all the difference when one uses the 100% view to set the Unsharp mask parameters. One can see the slider settings work "on the spot" especially the threshold changing the noise levels - excellent!

Regards from the Antipodes,

[Jowday]

15 minutes ago, Jeremy_Waller said:

Jowday:  I tried your suggestion. I changed the rendering/interpolation and the screen view seemed to have changed at 100% view.

John : Yes! it does make all the difference when one uses the 100% view to set the Unsharp mask parameters. One can see the slider settings work "on the spot" especially the threshold changing the noise levels - excellent!

Yes, always preview sharpening in whatever software at 100% - I don't use Photo much now that I have Photoshop, so my memory was wrong. I thought unsharp in Photo also had this little 100% preview window that lets you keep the image magnification unaltered while adjusting sharpness.

Photoshop:

If I remember correctly the actual saved image viewed in professional image viewers at 100% looks like what you see with nearest neighbor set in view quality in Photo. So I recommend that setting and viewing at 100% while sharpening is the way to go. No guarantees. 🙂

 

 

[Jeremy_Waller]

Re:  " So I recommend that setting and viewing at 100% while sharpening is the way to go. "

Yes. Way to go.

Please see the results of my work - attached image. Original is 7756x3280 pixels. The larger file will have a size so that it will have pixel dimensions of multiples of 300dpi to be printed on Kodak professional Endura paper. I like shiny stuff.

Regards,

Jeremy.

PS

I cannot get my jpeg file attached even though it is only 240 kb

JRW.

[John Rostron]

11 hours ago, Jowday said:

I don't use Photo much now that I have Photoshop

Interesting. Most forum users would have it the other way round. Chacun a son gout.

John

[walt.farrell]

11 hours ago, Jeremy_Waller said:

I cannot get my jpeg file attached even though it is only 240 kb

Try reducing the pixel dimensions (especially the width).

[Fixx]

1 minute ago, walt.farrell said:

Try reducing the pixel dimensions (especially the width).

Or is there some new user restriction in this forum software?

[walt.farrell]

33 minutes ago, Fixx said:

Or is there some new user restriction in this forum software?

There was one, at one point, but I'm not sure there is any more, as I have seen new users whose first post contained an image attachment.

In any case, it was Jeremy's 3rd post where he couldn't attach the image, not his first. And if he's using the image size he stated, I think it's bigger than the forum limit.

[Jowday]

10 hours ago, John Rostron said:

Interesting. Most forum users would have it the other way round. Chacun a son gout.

It is no match for Photoshop so no reason to switch. Taste is not involved here. They are simply not in the same league. I tried Photo out, it fell short by several meters. But I do use it for finalizing files from Designer or for some bitmap adjustments now they both share the file format. Photo and Designer are interesting products for pixel based art. The second you start importing RAW files into Photo the difference shows and it continues. And why wouldn't it be the case. Photoshop is professionel software for professionals. Photo is budget software that serves an entirely different segment of the market. Faute de grives, on mange des merles. Mostly hobbyists. And I am no hobbyist when it comes to photo editing.

[Jowday]

19 hours ago, Jeremy_Waller said:

Re:  " So I recommend that setting and viewing at 100% while sharpening is the way to go. "

Yes. Way to go.

Please see the results of my work - attached image. Original is 7756x3280 pixels. The larger file will have a size so that it will have pixel dimensions of multiples of 300dpi to be printed on Kodak professional Endura paper. I like shiny stuff.

Oh that sounds awesome. Shiny stuff is good stuff!

I hope you can share it with us somehow. Now you got me curious! 🙂

[Jeremy_Waller]

Hi All,

I have tried to lower the size to 231x125 pixel - no luck.

I get an error message. Took a screen shot. Cannot upload this also.

Error message looks like this:

There is a white rectangle with a black equilateral triangle in the top left corner. The triangle has a white exclamation mark (!) in it. To the right of this triangle is the integer number -200 and to the bottom right an OK button that invites one to press it.

Jeremy

[Jeremy_Waller]

Greetings Jowday,

I have discovered on AP forum the folowing :

•  
• 
• Moderators
• 
• 8,100
• 27,262 posts

• Report post
•  

Posted February 3, 2016

Hi teniedo23,

Welcome to Affinity Forums

There's a few restrictions in place for new users (to avoid spam) in the beginning. They will be lifted after a few posts.

Additionally seems currently even regular users are having trouble uploading files due to some forum issues.

Hopefully this should be fixed soon. Sorry for the inconvenience. 

It looks as if one must make a few more posts before one can upload an image.

Watch this space.

Jeremy.

[Jeremy_Waller]

Greetings Jowday,

Success. I reduced the height of my image to 1000 pixels and I was able to upload my moon image.

Attached is a picture of the moon in its actual colour (not a false colour image). I need to get 8 images  to the phases from new moon to full moon. This is for a photo competition. Getting good images will be time consuming because of the vagaries of the weather. The colours represent mineral content with the blues representing Titanium rich soils.

Jeremy.

[Jowday]

Imagine if it looked like that to the human eye 😮

[Jeremy_Waller]

3 minutes ago, Jowday said:

Imagine if it looked like that to the human eye 😮

I'll stick with the "wet concrete" look! I obtained this image by increasing the colour saturation of the "properly colour balanced" image  so the colours are really very dim.

Jeremy.

[Jowday]

5 hours ago, Jeremy_Waller said:

I'll stick with the "wet concrete" look! I obtained this image by increasing the colour saturation of the "properly colour balanced" image  so the colours are really very dim.

Jeremy.

Thank you for sharing! 🙂