Jump to content

How To Sharpen A Second Life Photo With The High Pass Filter In Gimp


Recommended Posts

Its always been my experience that raw snapshots taken in Second Life are not as focused as they could be. They tend to be slightly undefined. Taking snapshots with the Black Dragon viewer makes a difference, but can be very impactful on PC resources. Whichever viewer you use, knowing how to sharpen a Second Life photograph is essential, as its one of those select tools that can help make your images pop.
Click here to view the tutorial

Frogmore-2.jpg

Edited by Lusus Saule
Edited to get rid of all caps in title
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least it doesn't look like all these bumpmapped images but i prefer the unedited picture still, any sort of "sharpen" is either pointless (because its so subtle that it begs the question whether it was necessary in the first place) or its simply overdoing it and creating artifacts like it does in your example image:

image.png.0799f1fec234cf96eda816e34d2c9a8d.png

the banding in the sky for instance as well as the "inverted SSAO" around objects as shown here.

image.png.af6591c6a20870bc1032afa63aa2a639.png

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find most SL photographers edit their images. Look at an image's Exif details on Flickr and there's a good chance Photoshop or Gimp will be mentioned. Even if they're not thats no firm indication the images haven't been edited. If however you prefer not to edit your images then keep doing that.

The artifacts you've kindly ripped without persmission from the image I own are not created by sharpening the image. They're caused in this instance by enhancing the colours, which is something I will be investigating. You're right though that in some instances, haloing can be caused when images are sharpened, and I'll be dealing with that in another tutorial soon.

You are definitely wrong however that sharpening an image is pointless. It can make a big difference, although as with everything it depends on the image in question and how its used. The image included here is the original before sharpening. Differences can be seen between this and the image above. They're really not that subtle, although pushing the sharpening too far would ruin the image, and that haloing would come into play.

If you can't see the differences here, go to the tutorial page, scroll to the end and you'll see both versions of the images. You can enlarge each one in turn.

Frogmore-1.jpg

Edited by Lusus Saule
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lusus Saule said:

You are definitely wrong however that sharpening an image is pointless. It can make a big difference, although as with everything it depends on the image in question and how its used. The image included here is the original before sharpening. Differences can be seen between this and the image above. They are reasonably subtle, but pushing the effect too far would usually ruin an pic.

ALSO if you take photos at very high resolution (I use 5000) and then resize (I use 1999 or 2400) then using an UNSHARP MASK is very helpful to get the shot looking "as it was originally taken".   Some software lets you define sharpness on resizing within the process and that can be played with too.    Also important to note that many uploaders will automatically change your screenshot and it will become blurred in the process of saving bandwidth :D.    So plenty of reasons to sharpen a bit -- depending on how you work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chic Aeon said:

You are definitely wrong however that sharpening an image is pointless. It can make a big difference, although as with everything it depends on the image in question and how its used.

I can only agree. And just to add it. A perfect picture doesn't exist. At some point you must say, ok, now it is good enough. Else you will be busy to edit one and the same picture for the rest of your life to remove all the existing and not existing flaws.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2020 at 5:29 PM, Lusus Saule said:

... you've kindly ripped without persmission from the image I own ...

I'll kindly ignore that otherwise this will end up in a fight.

On 9/9/2020 at 5:29 PM, Lusus Saule said:

You are definitely wrong however that sharpening an image is pointless. It can make a big difference, although as with everything it depends on the image in question and how its used. The image included here is the original before sharpening. Differences can be seen between this and the image above. They're really not that subtle, although pushing the sharpening too far would ruin the image, and that haloing would come into play.

If you can't see the differences here, go to the tutorial page, scroll to the end and you'll see both versions of the images. You can enlarge each one in turn.

You show the very reason i said that in the first place.

Sharpening IS visible and the only thing i see from sharpening is that it ruins the image, every single one. If you want to make your images "sharp" and really pop, there are better ways with the inworld given tools. It's a lot of fiddling depending on what you define as "sharp" and "making it pop" but its more than worth it. The easiest way to make your image pop is tuning the colors, both Firestorm and Black Dragon can do that via the Exodus Post Processing stack (Color Correction and Tone Mapping). A sharp image on the other hand depends on what you define as "unsharp" in the image, if after tuning the colors you still aren't seeing a "sharp" image you might want to start playing with the Post Process Glow settings, especially in Black Dragon as they are default configured to be wider, softer and more ambient than the default glow settings found in other Viewers, this can create a "softer" image something i suppose you want to get rid of when you say "sharp". As Chic already mentioned, taking a picture at higher resolutions is also a good way to "sharpen" the image if you're going to scale it down to viewable resolutions again.

I didn't even need to look for long to find you an example from one of my Viewer's users, KT Syakumi

b2f26f3eb9aa4a1c67e3683e2284f65a.jpg

This image (just like all images i keep showcasing from my users) are completely unedited (aside from cropping or scaling down). I didn't take one of my pictures because i can already hear someone shouting i'm cheating because i know the in-and-outs of my own Viewer. The image is pretty sharp and the colors do really pop although the sharpness could be better if she had taken the picture in higher resolution which i assume wasn't possible due to it requiring a lot more horsepower and possibly being impossible to keep up the depth of field blur with higher resolutions. Regardless the image however clearly shows that there is no editing required to make pictures really pop.

Anyway, i kinda drifted away from the my statement that sharpening filters are pointless. I have even already said why in my first post but i'll have to explain it better it seems.

Sharpening can make a huge difference yes but i wasn't saying it can't, i said that the very fact that it DOES makes it so bad. By the time it DOES make a difference, it's already too much and ruins the image, anything less than "noticable" makes it obsolete because there is no point in having something that is not noticable in the first place when its sole purpose is being noticable which in turn ruins the image at hand. Sharpening filters are the true evil, not motion blur, lens flares, vignette or chromatic aberration, all these effects are just misused whereas sharpening cannot be used properly, it is eternally doomed to be bad both in games and in images. Even worse it is being used as "bandaid" for deeper underlying issues (like most image post processing)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The only images I've ever sharpened are RL astrophotos, where careful unsharp masking can make stars pop. In SL landscape/portrait photography, I'm fairly in agreement with NiranV. If I'm not liking what I see, I'll change windlight, or play with curves in post.

Sharpening risks not only the accentuation of banding or noise, but it also makes the resulting image less compressible by adding a lot of high spatial frequency information to the image.

All that said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sharpen away if that works for you.

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one can't see pictures just from a technical standpoint. Especially when it comes to artistic ones. What some viewers consider as "bad" or "ruined" might be actually the photographers personal style.

portrait1.jpg

Edited by Doc Carling
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For folks reading this that don't know, there are various ways to sharpen using post processing   The old "sharpen" and "sharpen more" (my software's names) are pretty much left over from a couple of decades ago and there are no choices to be made. Those -- again depending on the picture -- can be fairly to very destructive of a photo or screenshot    What "I" use instead is a feature called High Pass Sharpen which I believe is something akin to the title in this thread (I have never used GIMP)

 

Within that feature there are plenty of choices and sliders and such so you can adjust what you feel you need for the shot being processed.  

 

Here is a cropped only raw shot (not high res; I just hit the print screen button)  .

1489529457_highpasssharpen.thumb.png.9ad4f033588ef90ae506710a3daee4bd.png

And here is the same shot using the settings above BUT I switched it to "soft light" .

2041686560_highpasssharpensoftlight.thumb.png.f8187b1ff2d1caa24d832329ad81a715.png

The differences are subtle here.   But I wanted to past in an alter version too  :D  

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

I'll kindly ignore that otherwise this will end up in a fight.

If people want to use filters they will. If you don't want to then don't .Its a free world full of choices.  Rather than trying to undermine other people's hard work, why not start a blog and go to the trouble of writing a few tutorials on what you percieve to be your expertise. That is much better than infecting other people's content with your negativity.

What you call visible effects of sharpening are in this example banding. That is caused by  gradients in colour, as you can see in the sky. This has become visible due to editing colour. Sharpening the image doesn't really make it worse, but the effect can be softened by painting out some of the banding that might be visible in the filter layer. There are other ways of reducing banding in images too.

I have already mentioned haloing, which can happen if an image is sharpened too much. It can however be dealt with easily in editing.

In my opinion having as many tools as possible to work on images is a definite plus. Its up to each person to decide what they want to use and what they don't.

As for getting into a fight with me, grow up.

Edited by Lusus Saule
Add a bit more content
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Chic Aeon said:

  What "I" use instead is a feature called High Pass Sharpen which I believe is something akin to the title in this thread (I have never used GIMP)

You're right, the tutorial is about how to use the high pass filter in Gimp. Gimp offers a number of ways to sharpen images.

I think its worth pointing out, no one is pointing a gun at anyone's head and saying sharpen your images. But in spite of what one naysayer here may think, it is a very useful tool when working on images.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lusus Saule said:

If people want to use filters they will. If you don't want to then don't .Its a free world full of choices.  Rather than trying to undermine other people's hard work, why not start a blog and go to the trouble of writing a few tutorials on what you percieve to be your expertise. That is much better than infecting other people's content with your negativity.

As for getting into a fight with me, grow up.

After all, it's not like Niran has ever done anything like make and distribute an entire viewer.

Oh, wait...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

I think one can't see pictures just from a technical standpoint. Especially when it comes to artistic ones. What some viewers consider as "bad" or "ruined" might be actually the photographers personal style.

I agree completely. I come at image making from a ffine art point of view, and in the final analysis it the image that matters. I break rules and break images too lol

Glitch-Gif-2-Small.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

I think one can't see pictures just from a technical standpoint. Especially when it comes ot artistic ones. What some viewers consider as "bad" or "ruined" might be actually the photographers personal style.

This reminds me of people who decry the use of photoshop like tools on digital imagery, citing the work of Ansel Adams for "purity". Ansel was a madman in the dark room, doing all manner of manipulations to the negatives and prints to get the effect he wanted.

Unlike RL, SL affords tremendous control over the composition of a shot before taking it. Don't like the color of the sky? Change it. Don't like the color of the sunlight? Change it. My photography, whether SL or RL, is generally just that. I attempt to record what I see, as faithfully as possible. Outside of astrophotography, I very rarely have use for sharpening, particularly since I store my output in JPG, or now HEIF, where sharpening can invite compression artifacts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This reminds me of people who decry the use of photoshop like tools on digital imagery, citing the work of Ansel Adams for "purity". Ansel was a madman in the dark room, doing all manner of manipulations to the negatives and prints to get the effect he wanted.

Unlike RL, SL affords tremendous control over the composition of a shot before taking it. Don't like the color of the sky? Change it. Don't like the color of the sunlight? Change it. My photography, whether SL or RL, is generally just that. I attempt to record what I see, as faithfully as possible. Outside of astrophotography, I very rarely have use for sharpening, particularly since I store my output in JPG, or now HEIF, where sharpening can invite compression artifacts.

It surprises me to hear some people decry the use of Photoshop and similar software, since professional photographers tend to use raw image files which need to be edited. I'm just wondering if you use raw image files for your RL photgraphy? I'm sure you know better than me that Jpegs have already lost a lot of information, so its not suprising if issues arise through sharpening etc.

I think some of what you say goes to the heart of the issue here. Not wanting to put words into her mouth, but I think Niran may be considering SL snapshots as images, but since I use photo manipulation software, to some extent I treat them as faux photographs. This has proved an effective approach for many SL photographers over the years, but everyone has their own methods. Its a case of whatever works for you.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lusus Saule said:

It surprises me to hear some people decry the use of Photoshop and similar software, since professional photographers tend to use raw image files which need to be edited. I'm just wondering if you use raw image files for your RL photgraphy? I'm sure you know better than me that Jpegs have already lost a lot of information, so its not suprising if issues arise through sharpening etc.

I think some of what you say goes to the heart of the issue here. Not wanting to put words into her mouth, but I think Niran may be considering SL snapshots as images, but since I use photo manipulation software, to some extent I treat them as faux photographs. This has proved an effective approach for many SL photographers over the years, but everyone has their own methods. Its a case of whatever works for you.

Yep, I use raw in RL, when possible.

I shoot a lot of low light stuff, which makes sensor noise an issue. That has very high spatial frequency and sharpening exacerbates it. In extreme cases (astrophotography) I'll use misaligned stacking to reduce noise. If there is any "art" in my RL photography (I have a couple Kodak awards from my film days to suggest somebody likes what I do) it comes from the composition and subject matter, not from anything I've done in post. My most celebrated photograph was actually produced by accident. For the most part, my photography tries to reproduce that I see with my eyes, not my mind.

In SL, where I have tremendous control over the scene, I try to get the look I want before shooting. Much of my work here is "graffiti", where I insert myself or objects into other people's imagery. When I'm doing that, I'll try to match the lighting to that of the "victim" image, and shoot "over rez" against a monochrome backdrop to make it easier to do cut-outs. I will match curves on insertion, but that's about it.

Indeed, whatever works for you.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

Unlike RL, SL affords tremendous control over the composition of a shot before taking it. Don't like the color of the sky? Change it. Don't like the color of the sunlight? Change it. My photography, whether SL or RL, is generally just that. I attempt to record what I see, as faithfully as possible. Outside of astrophotography, I very rarely have use for sharpening, particularly since I store my output in JPG, or now HEIF, where sharpening can invite compression artifacts.

Exactly. SL offers so much control over everything that there would be no point in editing pictures in post. To me, taking raw pictures and making them look the way you want without editing them requires a lot more skill than simply editing anything in you want the picture to contain. Imagining the final picture and having the composition and the picture right is one thing but getting it right the first time around (e.g without post editing) rather than simply shooting a half-baked image and "fixing" all woopsies later is much close to real skilled photography. It requires extensive knowledge of how, why and when what settings work, also of course some imagination in case something doesn't work or goes the way you want it. Depth of Field for instance has a neat trick where you can turn its values negative to create a sobel sharpen like effect. Combine that with greyscale and you get a really cool looking stylized cartoon look.

17 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

This reminds me of people who decry the use of photoshop like tools on digital imagery, citing the work of Ansel Adams for "purity". Ansel was a madman in the dark room, doing all manner of manipulations to the negatives and prints to get the effect he wanted.

7 hours ago, Lusus Saule said:

It surprises me to hear some people decry the use of Photoshop and similar software, since professional photographers tend to use raw image files which need to be edited. I'm just wondering if you use raw image files for your RL photgraphy? I'm sure you know better than me that Jpegs have already lost a lot of information, so its not suprising if issues arise through sharpening etc.

I think some of what you say goes to the heart of the issue here. Not wanting to put words into her mouth, but I think Niran may be considering SL snapshots as images, but since I use photo manipulation software, to some extent I treat them as faux photographs. This has proved an effective approach for many SL photographers over the years, but everyone has their own methods. Its a case of whatever works for you.

That would be me then. I absolutely hate "photoshopping" digital imagery. Any type, not just SL but SL has been the biggest thorn in my eyes because in SL its not just used to get rid of your little ugly imperfections in your face or make your already thicc thunder thighs even thiccer to be attractive to some weird standards, in SL its so commonly used as substitute for lack of skill/expertise, patience or will to go through with actually learning how to make your pictures better in-world. It boils my blood hearing "doesn't matter, i can just fix it in post"... just NO. No... just because you can "just fix it in post" doesn't mean its an excuse for doing an half-assed job. If you'd just put some more time into your pictures you wouldn't be needing to fix them in post, you might even find something that you couldn't do in post (due to lack of knowledge with the image editing program).

Being able to fix something in post has been such a huge and misused excuse for laziness and inexperience that it has started to hurt me (not physical but you know what i mean), i have sworn to fight it even if it meant i have to spend an hour with someone to explain some improvements that could be done and how. It's not the first time i've done this and not the last, i often spend a good chunk of time with single users to help them, regardless of what the issue may be.

18 hours ago, Lusus Saule said:

If people want to use filters they will. If you don't want to then don't .Its a free world full of choices.  Rather than trying to undermine other people's hard work, why not start a blog and go to the trouble of writing a few tutorials on what you percieve to be your expertise. That is much better than infecting other people's content with your negativity.

18 hours ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

After all, it's not like Niran has ever done anything like make and distribute an entire viewer.

Oh, wait...

Theresa is right, i do have a blog and i do have my own Viewer which you also use and mentioned in your post (which is the reason i got here in the first place). Although the reason i wrote something is that you basically praise Black Dragon for its enhanced image quality but then sort of "discard" it as not (meaningful) enough to warrant not editing the picture. Rather than the usual approach of slam dunking someone face-first into the concrete for daring to mention Black Dragon and Photoshopping together i went for something more constructive and explain why sharpening is bad and possibly how your goals of making an image "pop" can be achieved in-Viewer because i'm pretty sure it can be done. After all i'm here to help and find a solution that doesn't involve simply "cheating" it in post. I haven't YET started to be negative.

Which brings me to:

18 hours ago, Lusus Saule said:

As for getting into a fight with me, grow up.

I think you misunderstood. I specifically quoted that very part where you claimed that i ripped parts of your image without your permission. Such a statement is so wrong on so many levels and i was thinking of dropping the niceness right there and then.

It made you look like your average big company content creator (you know the names) who make you sign a laughable contract to sell your soul and that of your mom to the devil in order to be evaluated for being ALLOWED to make mods or even addons to their product and will blacklist and sabotage you if they for some reason feel like you are not playing by their rules, be it offering better quality or not being a capitalistic douche like they seemingly require you to be.

I absolutely hate such people. This has nothing to do with growing up, these people are pure toxic to the community and content creation in general. They are like Bethesda trying to monetize mods for Skyrim again.

 

-----

To come back to the previous quote: I do have a blog and i do write some tutorials sometimes but the problem with tutorials is the same as with writing a wiki for the Viewer, the Viewer evolves and changes over time, sometimes radical changes, sometimes not. I don't like writing tutorials for fleeting subjects which is why i generally write very little tutorials, only for things i know are set in stone and will never change. The problem with tutorials on how to do "good" pictures is that there is really no guide on how to do a good picture, a good picture is something each situation, person and goal defines differently, you can't just smack some sliders up and expect it to be good (thats a big mistake a lot of people do). Each scene can have a different set of goals, some easy, some nigh impossible. Each goal changes what is needed for the image to be considered "good", a tutorial would show one way, one of many and it would show your way but the reality is everyone has to find their own way, their own style and putting something so open in a tutorial is quickly going to blow up the scope of said tutorial, its much easier to let people explore options themselves and help them whenever they need help by giving them suggestions how to achieve a desired effect. This is why i haven't made a tutorial on how-to nice pictures. Trust me i would, if i could but i would never be happy with it. I really appreciate when people take the time to attempt this although more often than not they just give out a lot of misinformation, giving suggestions for bad decisions or options to change.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, NiranV Dean said:

SL offers so much control over everything that there would be no point in editing pictures in post. To me, taking raw pictures and making them look the way you want without editing them requires a lot more skill than simply editing anything in you want the picture to contain.

I could not agree more with the above. Very nice post overall.

Beyond resizing everything else is tantamount to cheating when it comes to posting pictures on this forum for applause. Almost as embarrassing as placing a signature in the corner of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NiranV Dean said:

Exactly. SL offers so much control over everything that there would be no point in editing pictures in post. To me, taking raw pictures and making them look the way you want without editing them requires a lot more skill than simply editing anything in you want the picture to contain. Imagining the final picture and having the composition and the picture right is one thing but getting it right the first time around (e.g without post editing) rather than simply shooting a half-baked image and "fixing" all woopsies later is much close to real skilled photography. It requires extensive knowledge of how, why and when what settings work, also of course some imagination in case something doesn't work or goes the way you want it. Depth of Field for instance has a neat trick where you can turn its values negative to create a sobel sharpen like effect. Combine that with greyscale and you get a really cool looking stylized cartoon look.

That would be me then. I absolutely hate "photoshopping" digital imagery. Any type, not just SL but SL has been the biggest thorn in my eyes because in SL its not just used to get rid of your little ugly imperfections in your face or make your already thicc thunder thighs even thiccer to be attractive to some weird standards, in SL its so commonly used as substitute for lack of skill/expertise, patience or will to go through with actually learning how to make your pictures better in-world. It boils my blood hearing "doesn't matter, i can just fix it in post"... just NO. No... just because you can "just fix it in post" doesn't mean its an excuse for doing an half-assed job. If you'd just put some more time into your pictures you wouldn't be needing to fix them in post, you might even find something that you couldn't do in post (due to lack of knowledge with the image editing program).

Being able to fix something in post has been such a huge and misused excuse for laziness and inexperience that it has started to hurt me (not physical but you know what i mean), i have sworn to fight it even if it meant i have to spend an hour with someone to explain some improvements that could be done and how. It's not the first time i've done this and not the last, i often spend a good chunk of time with single users to help them, regardless of what the issue may be.

Theresa is right, i do have a blog and i do have my own Viewer which you also use and mentioned in your post (which is the reason i got here in the first place). Although the reason i wrote something is that you basically praise Black Dragon for its enhanced image quality but then sort of "discard" it as not (meaningful) enough to warrant not editing the picture. Rather than the usual approach of slam dunking someone face-first into the concrete for daring to mention Black Dragon and Photoshopping together i went for something more constructive and explain why sharpening is bad and possibly how your goals of making an image "pop" can be achieved in-Viewer because i'm pretty sure it can be done. After all i'm here to help and find a solution that doesn't involve simply "cheating" it in post. I haven't YET started to be negative.

Which brings me to:

I think you misunderstood. I specifically quoted that very part where you claimed that i ripped parts of your image without your permission. Such a statement is so wrong on so many levels and i was thinking of dropping the niceness right there and then.

It made you look like your average big company content creator (you know the names) who make you sign a laughable contract to sell your soul and that of your mom to the devil in order to be evaluated for being ALLOWED to make mods or even addons to their product and will blacklist and sabotage you if they for some reason feel like you are not playing by their rules, be it offering better quality or not being a capitalistic douche like they seemingly require you to be.

I absolutely hate such people. This has nothing to do with growing up, these people are pure toxic to the community and content creation in general. They are like Bethesda trying to monetize mods for Skyrim again.

 

-----

To come back to the previous quote: I do have a blog and i do write some tutorials sometimes but the problem with tutorials is the same as with writing a wiki for the Viewer, the Viewer evolves and changes over time, sometimes radical changes, sometimes not. I don't like writing tutorials for fleeting subjects which is why i generally write very little tutorials, only for things i know are set in stone and will never change. The problem with tutorials on how to do "good" pictures is that there is really no guide on how to do a good picture, a good picture is something each situation, person and goal defines differently, you can't just smack some sliders up and expect it to be good (thats a big mistake a lot of people do). Each scene can have a different set of goals, some easy, some nigh impossible. Each goal changes what is needed for the image to be considered "good", a tutorial would show one way, one of many and it would show your way but the reality is everyone has to find their own way, their own style and putting something so open in a tutorial is quickly going to blow up the scope of said tutorial, its much easier to let people explore options themselves and help them whenever they need help by giving them suggestions how to achieve a desired effect. This is why i haven't made a tutorial on how-to nice pictures. Trust me i would, if i could but i would never be happy with it. I really appreciate when people take the time to attempt this although more often than not they just give out a lot of misinformation, giving suggestions for bad decisions or options to change.

I really can't be bothered to read all this. All I saw was that I mentioned your viewer in my oringal comment. You would have noticed then that I said Black Dragon makes a difference with improving images. In fact it has a brilliant reputation for this. I also said that it consumes a lot of PC resources, which means those that don't have a high end PC can't use it.  The very fact that I mentioned Black Dragon is a good for SL photography, pretty much undermines everything you've said.

I also think that the fact you took the time to needlessly piss all over my post shows quite a dregree of mean spiritedness.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone has different tastes when it comes to art but also different preferences as to how to take pictures. To say one way is more superior and takes more skill would be a bit narrow minded (and perhaps arrogant?) imo. No shade intended, just my opinion.

I personally prefer post production editing because spending too much time inworld with shadows and all the other bells and whistles turned on is just too straining on my comp. Not everyone has the same level of resources and that's a worthwhile factor to consider. Also, learning how to edit as opposed to only limiting oneself to sl tools can open you up to playing around with pictures outside of sl. More of a transferable skill.

So without reading in detail the long posts here and acknowledging that I am missing out on some skills for not relying on sl viewers to produce raw pics, I do appreciate the tutorial presented in the OP and anyone who takes the time to prepare tutorials for that matter. Not everyone is generous in sharing their knowledge and skills. Constructive criticism aside, I think appreciation towards @Lusus Saule is well deserved.

Edited by AdminGirl
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lusus Saule said:

I really can't be bothered to read all this. All I saw was that I mentioned your viewer in my oringal comment. You would have noticed then that I said Black Dragon makes a difference with improving images. In fact it has a brilliant reputation for this. I also said that it consumes a lot of PC resources, which means those that don't have a high end PC can't use it.  The very fact that I mentioned Black Dragon is a good for SL photography, pretty much undermines everything you've said.

I also think that the fact you took the time to needlessly piss all over my post shows quite a dregree of mean spiritedness.

I didn't.... you know what. Fine! You want me to take the time to piss all over your post, i'll show you "pissing all over your post":

Your tutorial is bad. This tutorial is part of the reason everyone keeps making progressively worse pictures. You are giving people excuses to never develop any skills, never learn anything and never dig into the mechanics of how something works. You are encouraging people to slack the sh*t off, you are encouraging people to follow your bad example and ruin their otherwise decent pictures with stupid post processing. YOU sir are no better than the Call of Duty developers who turn Motion Blur past 11 every goddamn year they bring out another game in their infinite series of mediocre baby-shooters. We are once again one step closer to ruining art as a whole.

Also, stop spreading this goddamn misinformation. I'm sick of it. Black Dragon does NOT need a lot of PC resources, it doesn't even need better hardware than any other Viewer. Just because it CAN use more resources with additional features and settings that are completely optional doesn't mean the Viewer requires it to run. Versions before EEP broke everything (again) even ran Deferred Rendering with shadows on integrated Intel HD GPU's. Is THAT a lot of resources to you? Running the Viewer on a calculator-equivalent of a GPU? Writing realistic "recommended system" specifications doesn't mean it requires them, just that they are recommended for what I think is making the Viewer run decent at default settings. Stop giving me this "don't have high end PC can't use it" bull*****. When i lost my GTX 670 i used an old GTX 460 as substitute until my GTX 1060 arrived, the Viewer run *****ing fine, as long as i kept all the extra GPU-only shaders like Screen Space Reflections at low resolution (or off) i was getting 30-60 FPS with Deferred and Shadows on. That's a 10 year old GPU with only 1GB VRAM. That was last year. You know what a GTX 1060 is? That's not even a high end GPU, not even the lowest end spectrum of high end. That's absolute MINIMUM nowadays. You know why the Viewer runs on a toaster equivalent of a GPU? Because its CPU bound. Unless you have a *****ty AMD FX like i had you'll probably see quite some good framerates, especially if you sail the "Intel" flag. Simply for being Intel you apparently get twice my framerate. The FX got 60-80 FPS btw, thats a 9+ year old CPU and one of the worst from AMD (aside from the 8 cores which were even worse). Now tell me. One. More. Time. Black Dragon needs a high end PC.

I hope this is what you wanted man. It took me longer to think of how to piss all over your post than write my previous posts which you apparently misunderstood as such.

52 minutes ago, AdminGirl said:

Everyone has different tastes when it comes to art but also different preferences as to how to take pictures. To say one way is more superior and takes more skill would be a bit narrow minded (and perhaps arrogant?) imo. No shade intended, just my opinion.

I personally prefer post production editing because spending too much time inworld with shadows and all the other bells and whistles turned on is just too straining on my comp. Not everyone has the same level of resources and that's a worthwhile factor to consider. Also, learning how to edit as opposed to only limiting oneself to sl tools can open you up to playing around with pictures outside of sl. More of a transferable skill.

So without reading in detail the long posts here and acknowledging that I am missing out on some skills for not relying on sl viewers to produce raw pics, I do appreciate the tutorial presented in the OP and anyone who takes the time to prepare tutorials for that matter. Not everyone is generous in sharing their knowledge and skills. Constructive criticism aside, I think appreciation towards @Lusus Saule is deserved.

That's fine, everyone has his own opinion, otherwise we'd be bland and boring.

There is no such thing as "too straining on my comp". The PC is no living organism that "tires" out or dies because of some overusage. That's what they were made for, unless you overclock them and actually physically "burn" them you're not hurting your hardware by doing something "too straining", it will simply be slower at doing the thing while doing the thing.

Also, it seems like most people think that doing nice pictures goes smoothly for better hardware or "high end hardware", which i can tell you. It doesn't. At all. Some pictures i'm working on, i get 3-4 FPS before taking the snapshot. Depending on the area and settings it can go even lower and i can guarantee you that the super duper hyper high end gaming PC with quadrillion gigabytes of RAM and 4 GPU's is not doing any better, if you pull those settings up with the aim to make something truly nice looking, you'll be looking at a power point presentation regardless of your hardware, that's simply a limitation of SL and the settings, some are simply resource eaters (like raytracing) and there are no cheap shots there. A low framerate should not stop you from trying to get the best out of your image. Do not let crashes deter you, use them to learn the ropes. We've all been through this. trust me, i have crashed the Viewer so many times already blowing the settings (and resolution) completely out of proportion simply to see where my hardware gives up so i know in which area i can work in.

Edited by NiranV Dean
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...