Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/15/2014 21:59 (09/15/2014 15:59) |
| Message-ID | <150920141559054747%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | Floyd L. Davidson (33m) > nospam |
In article <8738bs2076.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:
it is to the user, which is what matters.Floyd L. DavidsonnospamFloyd L. DavidsonFloyd L. Davidsonnospam
UnSharpMask is not reversible.
it is with a non-destructive workflow.
I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that.
i absolutely do know the meaning, since it's all i use.
it's you who doesn't understand what a non-destructive workflow means
A non-destructive workflow means you can *undo* and then *redo*.
That is not a reversible function.
in other words, the user sharpens today and then tomorrow or next month or whenever, they can readjust it or remove it entirely. that means to the user, it's reversible.
that's why a non-destructive workflow is so powerful.
For example, you can add sharpening with a high pass sharpen tool to an image, save it as a JPEG, send it to someone else, and they can use a blur tool to reverse the sharpen.not perfectly. you even said 'virtually reverses' in your description.
that's another way of saying 'there is some loss.'
In article <87bnqh1mby.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:nospam
Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.
Floyd L. Davidsonin a destructive workflow that is true.
If the sharpening is done with UnsharpMask that cannot be done. USM is not reversible.
in a non-destructive workflow, it is not true.
09/13/2014-
