Eric Stevens
If you want to argue with what he said then you have to use the same meaning that he did.

nospam
i used the common meaning of the term reversible.

Floyd L. Davidson
Look up the common meaning of the term "reversible process", and stop making absurd claims. Your problem is not knowing what we are talking about, even now after all this discussion and effort to explain it.

nospam
i didn't say reversible process. you are twisting what i said as well as lying.

i said usm is reversible with a non-destructive workflow.

that is a true statement, and not limited to just usm. again, that's the whole point of a non-destructive workflow.

Floyd L. Davidson
And off we go again with you using a different definition just to confuse the issue.

The discussion is about how a high pass sharpen algorithm is a "reversible process" and an unsharp mask algorithm is not.

nospam
your problem is you can't admit that you have no idea about how a non-destructive workflow actually works, so you pretend you do and toss out some buzzwords like non-linear undo (which is laughably wrong) and then try to claim it's only for cartoon characters.

you clearly spewing and also looking like an utter fool.

Floyd L. Davidson
I am well aware of what a non-destructive workflow is and does, and that is why I'm not doing something as stupid as relating it to a non-reversible process such as the unsharp mask function.

You do not seem to be able to differentiate the terminology required to discuss the topic at hand. Apparently "Abobe for Dummies" doesn't have even one paragraph, much less the necessary chapter, to help you with that.

nospam
he is using his own narrow definition and intentionally dismissing *anything* else.

Floyd L. Davidson
Because a typical dictionary may have 14 meanings for a word is not a license for a reader to choose which one to abuse. The *writer* chooses, not the reader.

nospam
it seems you cannot discern between reading and writing.

*i'm* the one who said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, which makes *me* the writer. therefore, according to you, i get to choose.

Floyd L. Davidson
Kind makes you look less than astute. You did write that... after you *read* a reference to "non-reversible functions". If you want to respond to that you do not have the option of redefining the terms.

Now look up what a "reversible process" is. The term of art, not the simple term.