Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 09/19/2014 00:20 (09/19/2014 10:20) |
Message-ID | <7gmm1a9hmr3iro23u60db84s8vt9tspn94@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (8h & 53m) |
SandmanI've already pointed you to the definition of 'reversible process'. It's not something you just pluck out of a dictionary.
In article <180920141152036200%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote: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.
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.It could be that I know what he is talking about. I'm surprised that so few others do. --nospamSandman
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.