nospam
In article <87d2avzfnx.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.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.

nospam
adobe didn't come up with the name. it's what everyone calls it, because it's non-destructive.

Floyd L. Davidson
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.

nospam
it's not non-linear undo.

it's a parametric editor and is more advanced than pixel editors.

Floyd L. Davidson
Basically you can go back to the beginning and do it right the second time.

nospam
nope. that is *completely* wrong.

there is no need whatsoever to go back to the beginning.

you have no idea what you're talking about.

Floyd L. Davidson
But you can't reverse what you already did if it was Unsharp Mask.

nospam
wrong on that too.

not only can it be reversed or modified, but so can any other operation.