This has always been too puzzling for me to try, but after watching all of @harry_durgin 's Weekly Edits, I figured it might be just the thing to bring out the veins in my dragonfly pictures. It worked too. Though I was surprised to find that it wasn’t the finest scale that I needed to work with, but rather the next one up in size.
Before:
After:
Best with masks, hiding fine elements on homogenous areasm such as sky, backgrounds, etc, otherwise might cause noise or unwanted grain
In this case it doesn’t seem to be necessary (I used the bottom spline to add a little denoising).
But I’ll bear it in mind it future. Thanks.
[quote=“Colin_Adams, post:1, topic:2786”]
Though I was surprised to find that it wasn’t the finest scale that I needed to work with, but rather the next one up in size.
[/quote]Usually you’ll want to have a smooth transition between the scales/frequency bands.
To sharpen this I’d usually use RL deconvolution via G’MIC:
Hm. Looks like softening in pixels.us. Looking at the PNG I uploaded, it appears much sharper. That was prepared for Facebook (2048 long side, as suggested recently on another thread). I guess a different dimension and/or format is wanted here?
I go for high quality Jpegs, 690 pixels wide. That way they don’t get resampled.
Testing that formula:
Nope. That doesn’t work either.
So the image that you uploaded at 690 pixels was considerably sharper than the one displayed? Can you upload that one somewhere else so we can compare them?
To be honest they look very similar to me (when the board is open at full with, if it’s smaller the image is resized and gets more blury). When I look at the differences in an editor they are hardly more than a single value. I’d say if you want them sharper, sharpen them after resizing.
But I was quite happy with the PNG at the size it was - 690 pixels is too small. But the browser shows both the PNG and the small jpeg at the same size (as near as I can judge). And this was about the same size (again, as far as I can judge) that geeqie shows the PNG - but it looks far sharper. Geeqie shows the 690 JPEG as very small. Naturally it doesn’t look sharp when enlarged. So that doesn’t seem a good idea at all.
I understand what is happening now - I have the browser zoomed to 300% (so the page width fills the screen). At that width the 690 pixel image is appears approximately the same width as the PNG in geeqie.
So I guess there is no satisfactory solution for me.
