Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/18/2014 19:56 (09/18/2014 13:56) |
| Message-ID | <180920141356374682%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (13h & 14m) |
In article <slrnm1m6lv.93o.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
they're using the term process to mean the mathematical transform itself.SandmanEric 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'.
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.
however, the user doesn't care about that.
whether a transform itself is reversible makes no difference whatsoever in a non-destructive workflow because *everything* is reversible in a non-destructive workflow. that's the key advantage of it.
09/13/2014-
