"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:u1jahwmnqsue.dlg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> It doesn't actually do this. Changing the individual channels in
levels,
> automatically or not, always results in a degree of histogram combing
and
> gaps. These are masked if you look at the composite histogram, which is
a
> weighted average of the other channels.
>
> The histogram is often incorrectly used as an indicator of quality, or
> lack
> thereof, or as a warning as to when banding might occur. This
> conventional
> wisdom has submerged any usefulness that the histogram might offer, and
> the
> end result is a tool that has caused far more harm than good. I
recommend
> not using it. I because convinced of this after reading Dan Margulis.
>
> Adding noise to individual channels is the best way to eliminate
banding,
> should it occur.
>
> If you have time to spend, curves is a better tool for improving the
> image,
> since it can do every thing levels can, and more.
>
> --
> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
Mike, that is one of the most uncompromised, straightforward valuable
things
I've read for some time. Thanks for that! The other I read was yours, too.
I'm glad you stick with us here.
|
