Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 09/16/2014 04:02 (09/16/2014 14:02) |
| Message-ID | <6t5f1a9iott62bbr6tbbugdthsvt6nq46u@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (5m) > Eric Stevens |
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:55:29 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamIt mattered to Floyd and it mattered to me. The fact that it doesn't matter to you is no ground for you reinterpet the meaning of 'reversible' and take over the conversation.
In article <h2qe1at234ulkvm6u2bvbael7k3iht3vrm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamSavageduckEric Stevens
All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are non-destructive.
I fully expect you to tell me I am wrong.
I will tell you that you are discussing a point which is not the point raised by Floyd. So too is nospam, but that is not surprising.
Floyd was referring to a reversible function: run it forwards and you get sharpening; run it backwards and you get blur. Or the other way around if you wish.
there are indeed such functions, but that doesn't matter to users. they want to edit photos, not learn mathematical theory.
when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow.Fine, fine. If you wear a reversible jacket do call it, too, a non-destructive work flow?
Of course not. There are several subtly different meanings to the word 'reversible' and you seem to have only learned one of them. --
Regards,
Eric Stevens
09/13/2014-
