Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 09/16/2014 07:35 (09/15/2014 22:35) |
| Message-ID | <2014091522353122268-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | nospam (3m) Eric Stevens (2h & 30m) > Savageduck |
On 2014-09-16 02:59:40 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:
Eric StevensYou might have notice that android addressed that comment to Floyd.
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:36:08 +0200, android <here@there.was>wrote:androidEric Stevens
In article <87ppewz599.fld@barrow.com>, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:Floyd L. Davidsonandroid
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:nospamFloyd L. Davidson
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.
Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function.
Oki... A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing. ;-)
I doubt if nospam can get his mind around that thought. :-(
A non-destructive workflow makes that irreversible function very reversible indeed.
Once that working copy has had USM applied, the layers merged, and compressed into a JPEG (a destructive action) then Floyd is correct, the function can no longer be reversed. However, Floyd doesn't see the concept of the non-destructive workflow because he doesn't, or appears not to use one. He certainly isn't using what is available to those running either Lightroom or Photoshop CS6/CC/CC 2014, and ignores that some here have the ability to take advantage of a non-destructive, or "reversible" workflow because of the software tools installed on their computers.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
09/13/2014-
