Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/16/2014 04:12 (09/15/2014 22:12) |
| Message-ID | <150920142212530428%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (45m) |
In article <87ppewz599.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:
i never said the *function* was. i said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, and it is, as are all adjustments.Floyd L. DavidsonnospamSavageduckEric 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.
Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function.
that's the main point of a non-destructive workflow, something you refuse to acknowledge.
09/13/2014-
