Même si ce n’est évidemment pas aussi efficace que la Netteté de l’optique, l est toujours possible d’utiliser le masque de netteté. Avec en particulier la possibilité d’avoir une accentuation différenciée entre centre et bords (curseur bords).
Et on peut même en faire un autoréglage partiel (preset) pour l’appliquer aux cas similaires d’ouverture.
Evidemment, si l’objectif ne renvoie pas les Exif Focale et Ouverture, ce qui est généralement le cas avec les objectifs vintage, ce n’est pas très facile de s’y retrouver, sauf à noter ces éléments à la prise de vue.
Even if it is obviously not as effective as the lens sharpness, it is still possible to use the unsharp mask. With in particular the possibility of having a differentiated accentuation between center and edges (slider Edge offset).
And we can even make a partial preset to apply it to similar cases of opening.
Obviously, if the lens does not return the Focal and Aperture Exif , which is generally the case with vintage lenses, it is not very easy to navigate, except to note these elements when shooting.
Sorry to say, but unsharp mask alone is inadequate when striving for best results. In fact it is just better than nothing, really.
I expect a RAW converter which cost me 200€ to give me a better tool than that.
True because fine contrast is used to smoothen things like human-skin. it’s more a “unsharpen” tool.
Microcontrast (global) and clearview plus (which is selective microcontrast) are enhancing edges and lines more at the cost of artefacts and unwanted detailing on for instance faces.