Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 09/18/2014 10:09 (09/18/2014 10:09) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm1l5a7.881.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | nospam (7h & 42m) > Sandman |
In article <c7ck1a1vpl08l37ceikbofgr5q7pl12ar3@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
While you're busy pretending to be the spokesperson for Floyd, the rest of us already knows what idiotic statemens he's made. It is true that Floyd is so inept at English that he may very well say something but mean something completely different, but all we have are the stupid things he actually types down.Sandman
Of course it's not the same. That doesn't mean that deleting an instruction that leads to a specific result doesn't mean the instruction is reversible. The fact that you *can* delete it means that it is by definition reversible.In fact, "Reversible" comes from the word "reverse", which means "move back". The undo function is the most obvious example of a reversible process.Deleting (or turning off) an instruction in a non-destructive workflow reverses its affect on the result.Eric Stevens
All of which is true, but it's not what Floyd meant.
I had hoped point to Wikipedia but their article on 'reversible process' starts off by assuming a knowledge of entropy and then goes on from there. To avoid this, I will have to be technical.That's a joke in itself!
The idea of a 'reversible process' emerged from the study of thermodynamics in the mid 19th century.Nope.
<snip ignorance and irrelevant comments about compressed air>
If the transformation of an image from one state to another entails the loss of information then it cannot be brought back to it's initial state without the provision of the information which has been lost. Such a transformation process is not fully reversible.Incorrect. All modern graphics editor can do it with ease. Your ignorance about them does not mean they don't exist.
What Floyd was saying was that High Pass Filter sharpening and Gaussian Blur are basically the same process and that process is fully reversible.All image effects in Photoshop are 100% reversible.
He was also saying that Unsharp Mask is not fully reversible and does involve the loss of information.Yes, that's the incorrect statement he did that we are making fun of - that is, after we corrected him and he kept making the incorrect statement.
None of this has got anything to do with the use of the sidecar files used by Lightroom, DxO, NX2, NX-D, Darktable or any other application.Of course not. But all of those have the ability to reverse the effect of any transformation of an image - hence; reversible.
Simple English.
It is true that for Floyd, who uses rudimentary tools that aren't as capable as modern tools, most of what he does is not reversible, but the rest of the world - and serious photographers - aren't limited by his kindergarten tools.
-- Sandman[.net]
09/13/2014-
