Floyd L. Davidson
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:

nospam
In article <h2qe1at234ulkvm6u2bvbael7k3iht3vrm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Savageduck
All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are non-destructive.

I fully expect you to tell me I am wrong.

Eric Stevens
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.

nospam
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.

Floyd L. Davidson
Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function.