Floyd L. Davidson
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2014-09-16 10:36:29 +0000, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Floyd L. Davidson
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
So? The fact still remains, regardless of personal opinion about Adobe, Lightroom, & Photoshop, those using that software have the ability to maintain a fully non-destructive, and reversible workflow, that includes reversing the effects of any filter including USM.

Floyd L. Davidson
It's not a "reversible" workflow. The correct terms would be either a non-linear undo, or simply that it can be reverted.

Savageduck
I guess you are in complete denial with regard to the capabilities of current versions of Lightroom & Photoshop, so it doesnâEUR(Tm)t really matter what you want the correct terms would be. I will take âEURoereversibleâEUR out of my obviously too hyperbolic for you, description of the capabilities of those Adobe products, and just continue to use the word Adobe uses, âEURoenon-destructiveâEUR.

Floyd L. Davidson
That is a good move on your part. Start sticking with what Adobe calls it, and in the process use appropriate terms.

As I've said, and clearly Adobe agrees with me, it is not a "reversible workflow". They provide the ability to revert an edit. That is also known as a "non-linear undo". It is not a method of "reversing" edits in the way these terms are normally used in the industry.

Basically you can go back to the beginning and do it right the second time. But you can't reverse what you already did if it was Unsharp Mask.

Savageduck
âEUR¦and if you are going to start that reverse mathematical operation from a compressed, & lossy JPEG, good luck getting back to where you started.

Floyd L. Davidson
Your workflow, even if non-destructive, will be totally unable to deal with reverting any previous editing with the exception of processes, such as sharpen (not USM), that are reversible.

Savageduck
It seems that you have never worked with a truly non-destructive workflow, with Photoshop and Lightroom I have a totally reversible workflow which can deal with reverting crops, spot removal, content aware fill, content aware move, any of the various grad filters available, and filters, including the notorious USM.

Floyd L. Davidson
I did not insert this BS about workflow into the discussion. It seems some people only know about one thing, and can't get past it even when it has no relevance to a discussion.

Savageduck
As I have said in some other responses of mine, the JPEG which might be produced is just a compressed, lossy snapshot of the actual, non-destructively adjusted, and uncompressed layered PSD, or TIF. It is best to consider it a version, and there is no point in even trying to rework it. Call it âEURoeversion-1.jpgâEUR. Once you are done with readjusting the layered PSD/TIF you can produce âEURoeversion-2.jpgâEUR, and still have the ability to return to the working PSD/TIF to produce a âEURoeversion-3.jpgâEUR.

Floyd L. Davidson
Once you send it to another person, your workflow has nothing to do with what they have. If what they have is oversharpened with a high pass sharpen tool, it is reversible. If it is over sharpened with an unsharp mask tool it cannot be reversed.

Savageduck
The product of a non-destructive workflow is not a JPEG, and there is little point in doing any reversion work in those JPEGs other than some polishing tweaks.

Floyd L. Davidson
Get past your workflow. That is not the issue that was being discussed.

Savageduck
Obviously there is nothing I can say or demonstrate to convince you that I am able to do what I say I can with LR &/or PS.

Floyd L. Davidson
Untrue. Nobody doubts what you can do with it, the question is what significance is there to that? The answer in this case is "none".

Savageduck
You are stuck in a World void of Adobe where you spin your knowledge of fundamental technical minutia into a shield of denial. I will not be, nor do I strive to be the the technical wizard you obviously are, but this is one of those times where you have not moved with the times.

As I said when I first came into this thread, I fully expected you to tell me I was wrong and an ignoramus (which I might well be regarding some stuff), and you met that expectation, and there isnâEUR(Tm)t much point in going any further and we should just agree to disagree, you in your World, and me in mine.

Floyd L. Davidson
Wrong again. I don't mind pointing out that you were wrong then and wrong now. At least wrong about who said what.

I haven't called you an ignoramus, and have no need to when you are willing to point out that you think that is what you should be called. You aren't wrong about what you are, only about who said it.