Unmask

[spark]

Can anyone help explaining the purpose of unmasking a picture? What is the different between sharpening and unmasking a picture?

[Marley]

Do you mean the Unsharp Mask in Photoshop?

I read that in the "old days" they use to "Unsharp Mask" pictures by shooting a picture with a sheet of glass over it to enhance the sharpness.


Although the name is confusing
Unsharp Mask will make your pictures sharper.
not
Unsharper....

lol..

[spark]

marley wrote:
Do you mean the Unsharp Mask in Photoshop?

I read that in the "old days" they use to "Unsharp Mask" pictures by shooting a picture with a sheet of glass over it to enhance the sharpness.


Although the name is confusing
Unsharp Mask will make your pictures sharper.
not
Unsharper....

lol..

However if comparing to sharpness?

[lziering]

Unsharp mask is the way most Photoshop users sharpen an image. It allows so much flexibility and control you could fill a book or two with just how to use it. My suggestion is that you try one of two techniques.

First, compete all modifications you will be doing to the image. Using: Image > Image Size > set the size and dip you want to print at. Next, copy the background layer by draging it to the new layer icon at the bottom of the layers pallet. With this new copy of the background selected go to: Filter > Sharpen > Unsharp Mask. Try one of two settings as a starting place. Either use 250 / .5 / 1 or 150 / 1.5 / 3. (I'm not going to explain these settings you will have to read a book or experiment.) Click OK.

View the image at between 50% and 66%. Now, with the layer you have just sharpened selected, use the opacity slide (upper right of the Layers Palette) and blend the sharpened layer with the unsharpened layer below until it looks just a wee bit sharper than you think is best. If there are ares you want less sharp (around wrinkle, etc.) then you need to create a layer mask on the sharpened layer and paint out these ares with a black paint brush.

Good luck.

[chris maddock]

marley wrote:
Do you mean the Unsharp Mask in Photoshop?

I read that in the "old days" they use to "Unsharp Mask" pictures by shooting a picture with a sheet of glass over it to enhance the sharpness.


Actually, what they did was to sandwich the negative with a slightly out of focus copy (the unsharp mask) in the enlarger.
The effect was to increase the edge contrast in the resultant print, which gave the impression of increased sharpness.
That is exactly what the Photoshop USM does, increase edge contrast - but I (and all of us I suspect) know which way is easier, certainly less messy ;-)

KRs
Chris

[spark]

Thanks guys for the wonderful points. At the same time anyone tried using the ACDsee to carry out the unmasking?

[lziering]

I've never heard anyone other than you use this term "unmasking". If you mean using the sharpening adjustment in ACR, yes, I've used it. It works well and is probably best used to add just a small amount of sharpness to images before opening them in Photoshop. I'd suggest a value between 25 and 50.

Stop calling it "unmasking"; no one is going to know what you are talking about!!!

[spark]

Ok is unsharp Mask... hope that Satisfy U...

[robertwgross]

lziering wrote:
Stop calling it "unmasking"; no one is going to know what you are talking about!!!

Let me guess. Have you been reading this entire thread?

Unmask is a standard tool, and we do understand what the original poster is referring to.

---Bob Gross---

[spark]

Is ok Bob....thanks!

[lziering]

robertwgross wrote:
lziering wrote:
Stop calling it "unmasking"; no one is going to know what you are talking about!!!

Let me guess. Have you been reading this entire thread?

Unmask is a standard tool, and we do understand what the original poster is referring to.

---Bob Gross---

Let me guess. You didn't read Sparks post that was just above mine that asked again about "unmasking". Maybe you could tell me more about the "standard tool" called "unmask. I've only heard of a filter called "unsharp mask". It's always such a pleasure to read you posts, Bob. Still trying to convince yourself that the body on your D60 is better than a $300 Rebel?

[robertwgross]

lziering wrote:
It's always such a pleasure to read you posts, Bob. Still trying to convince yourself that the body on your D60 is better than a $300 Rebel?

No, I don't have to convince myself. That was done long ago. The previous discussion was that somebody had contended that the D60 body was built on a Rebel body. Of course, as many people know, that is utter hogwash. As I sit them side by side, there is very little comparison in physical size, weight, top display or most features.

The mode dial is in the same place. I will give you that one. They both take EOS EF lenses. I will give you that one also.

---Bob Gross---

[spark]

robertwgross wrote:
lziering wrote:
It's always such a pleasure to read you posts, Bob. Still trying to convince yourself that the body on your D60 is better than a $300 Rebel?

No, I don't have to convince myself. That was done long ago. The previous discussion was that somebody had contended that the D60 body was built on a Rebel body. Of course, as many people know, that is utter hogwash. As I sit them side by side, there is very little comparison in physical size, weight, top display or most features.

The mode dial is in the same place. I will give you that one. They both take EOS EF lenses. I will give you that one also.

---Bob Gross---


Hi Bob, don’t worry about the responses, because certain people just like to argue and comment to ensure “winning”. Anyway this forum is created to help (which is forgotten because of his ignorance) and not to pin point and go on and on and then sleepless nights thinking how to go on with the next war….. So Bob let’s do something better than with some …..