Hi Derek, I didn't really understand this comment of yours:
This could use an unsharp mask (10%, radius 35 pixels) for localized contrast enhancements beyond simple curves, but it's good enough for me now as is.
with regards to the picture in the header. Do you mean denoising mask? If so, there is no way to set a radius for that in LR (but for sharpening). Do you use a different SW?. My intention was actually to try it out, but I am not sure how. With your comment, are you suggesting that the sharpening would look better appliying at the same time a denoising beacause this one picture is noisy or independently of the noise a picture could have? Poco2 18:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: The concept is en:Unsharp_masking#Local_contrast_enhancement. I use photoshop CS2, an old version, but the concept is the same on all versions of photoshop. I've never used LR, but I found this article. When you do a normal details sharpen, you use a small radius and a large amount. When you do localized contrast, you use a large radius (I usually do 35 pixels) and a small amount (I usually do 10%, but as much as 15%-20% for certain kinds of images). I always leave the "Masking"/"Threshold" set to 0. "Detail" in LR is new, but presumably you can adjust that to whatever looks best. Be careful, if you do too high an "Amount", it starts to posterize and halo.
Rather than sharpening per se, this adds selective (local) contrast without the heavy luminance and saturation changes caused by a curves adjustment. Unsharp mask is also available for free in en:GIMP.
Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. Thank you.
No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please check my FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 03:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Good quality. It would be better, if you can solve the obvious distortion problem. Third opinion appreciated. --Hubertl 03:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Might easily be fixed by means of Lr, but QI anyway. --Johann Jaritz 04:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)