Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 09/18/2014 07:12 (09/18/2014 17:12) |
| Message-ID | <lbqk1adl3p9v8m9gj7jen4cbmlum8a7k2f@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (6m) > Eric Stevens Floyd L. Davidson (1h & 44m) Sandman (2h & 58m) |
On Thu, 18 Sep 2014 00:01:24 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamIf you want to argue with what he said then you have to use the same meaning that he did.
In article <0njk1apc99b22v5jksl3jr2v0jvmt65fp7@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensSandmanSavageduckEric Stevens
If you make the adjustments in Photoshop with a non-destructive workflow there is no use of sidecar files or catalog entries as in Lightroom.
True, but this has nothing to do with whether a process is reversible or not.
Of course it does. Non-destructive adjustments means they are reversible.
Not in the strictly technical sense in which Floyd was using the term.
that's the whole problem.
floyd cannot acknowledge that there are other completely valid meanings.
--nospamSandmanEric Stevens
A tip for the future - whenever Floyd says anything, it's a safe bet to assume the exact opposite is true.
Not so, I'm afraid.
in many cases, it is.
he spouts about stuff he's never used and as a result, gets some very fundamental things wrong.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
09/13/2014-
