Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 09/18/2014 19:39 (09/18/2014 19:39) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm1m6lv.93o.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (17m) > Sandman Eric Stevens (4h & 41m) > Sandman |
In article <180920141152036200%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
But you could have, and nothing would have changed. Adding the word "process" doesn't change anything. It's not like there's only one valid way to interprete "reversible process" in relation to image processing.Eric Stevensnospam
It may be for your definition of 'reversible' but it is not so in the sense of the standard meaning of 'reversible process'.
i never said 'reversible process'.
Every step of adding adjustments to an image can be called part of a process, or a process in itself. Modern software can reverse that process by deleting the steps taken.
i said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, and it is. period.I have no idea why Eric is hell bent on supporting Floyd while he's digging himself further and further down into the abyss.
-- Sandman[.net]
09/13/2014-
