Eric Stevens
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:55:33 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
In article <2014091516100048753-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>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.

Savageduck
I got what Floyd was talking about when he was talking of high pass sharpening, and reversing it by applying the corresponding reverse parameter blur. However, he also stated above, "UnSharpMask is not reversible". My point addressed the fact that for some of us, that is not an entirely valid statement.

nospam
what it boils down to is his definition of reversible is different than what the rest of the world uses.

Eric Stevens
Oh! - Hullo rest of the world!