Skip to main content
news

Re: Lenses and sharpening

Eric Stevens
SubjectRe: Lenses and sharpening
FromEric Stevens
Date09/17/2014 11:28 (09/17/2014 21:28)
Message-ID<3tki1albofoo29nv2octl0pa3ssj2muab4@4ax.com>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
Followsnospam
Followupsnospam (45m) > Eric Stevens
Savageduck (3h & 45m)

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:29:01 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
In article <5u2i1a1oelhg7khlkd5nndl3dijtdt4bpd@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Eric Stevens
I was saying that I doubt nospam could get his mind around the thought that "A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing". The evidence is that he (and you) can't.

nospam
of course i can.

what you and floyd fail to understand is none of that matters to anyone except you and floyd.

You could have let us alone to get on with it, but no you had continue at full bore with your missionary work.

users are interested in getting the best results with the least amount of hassle. they don't want math tutorials or whether a function has an inverse.

It sounds as though the penny has dropped.

users edit their images with lightroom (or aperture) and can change anything at any time at any point in the future, *including* altering unsharp mask. to them, *everything* is reversible. that's the *reality*.

Which has nothing to with whether or not a process is reversible.

to put it another way, i can change the amount of unsharp mask on an image i processed a year ago, without having to redo *anything* else i did. all of the retouching, white balance, etc. remain the same (unless i choose to adjust those too).

But you can't do that once the image has been exported. --

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam (45m) > Eric Stevens
Savageduck (3h & 45m)