Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 09/17/2014 11:39 (09/17/2014 21:39) |
Message-ID | <95li1a9csaaa04is86srtet27am3c31o74@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Savageduck |
Followups | Sandman (11m) nospam (34m) Savageduck (3h & 44m) |
SavageduckA non-destructive work flow does not make a process reversible. All it does is let you have another go at a process using different settings.
On 2014-09-17 04:23:29 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 01:34:16 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckEric Stevens
On 2014-09-16 08:05:37 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:35:31 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckEric Stevens
On 2014-09-16 02:59:40 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:36:08 +0200, android <here@there.was>wrote:androidEric Stevens
In article <87ppewz599.fld@barrow.com>, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:Floyd L. Davidsonandroid
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:nospamFloyd L. Davidson
In article <h2qe1at234ulkvm6u2bvbael7k3iht3vrm@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamAll adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are non-destructive.Eric Stevens
I fully expect you to tell me I am wrong.
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.
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.
Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function.
Oki... A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing. ;-)
I doubt if nospam can get his mind around that thought. :-(
You might have notice that android addressed that comment to Floyd.
So what? I was agreeing with him.
Not quite. You redirected the intended comment to *nospam*, If you agreed with him your snide response would have poked at Floyd.
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.Eric StevensSavageduckSavageduckEric Stevens
A non-destructive workflow makes that irreversible function very reversible indeed.
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.
Not at all. If you reread what I wrote below, you will see that I have a firm grasp of each of the proposed concepts in this thread.
What then is a reversible process?
We are descending into silliness here. A reversible process is one where any changes made in the execution of that process can be reversed to revert to the original state.
Floyd was trying to address the question raised by the OP. The arrival of nospam and then you on the scene confusing non-destructive editing with whether a process is reversible or not has brought all sensible discussion to a halt.SavageduckEric StevensSavageduckOnce 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.
Floyd specifically addressed high pass sharpening (HPS) in response to Alfred's query regarding USM. We ended up discussing HPS & USM and the qualities of both. I know what Floyd was talking about.
Then why are you rabitting on about non-destructive work flows?
Because there is more to this thread, and NG than the arcane pontificating of Floyd D, and more over he, or anybody else here doesn’t control the flow and drift of any thread.
There is much more to post processing than Floyd’s way of doing things. Even though he denies the reality of the tools available to the Photoshop user.I'm afraid it's not a turf war. What Floyd said was perfectly correct and fundamental. It's quite independent of the editing software. --