Eric Stevens
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:35:31 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2014-09-16 02:59:40 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:

Eric Stevens
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:36:08 +0200, android <here@there.was>wrote:

android
In article <87ppewz599.fld@barrow.com>, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

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.

android
Oki... A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing. ;-)

Eric Stevens
I doubt if nospam can get his mind around that thought. :-(

Savageduck
You might have notice that android addressed that comment to Floyd.

Eric Stevens
So what? I was agreeing with him.

Savageduck
A non-destructive workflow makes that irreversible function very reversible indeed.

Eric Stevens
You are fudging word meanings. In fact you seem to be demonstrating that you too don't know the difference between a reversible function and a reversible work flow.

Savageduck
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.

Eric Stevens
Floyd wasn't even talking about it! He was talking about different sharpening algorithms.