Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/19/2014 00:38 (09/18/2014 18:38) |
| Message-ID | <180920141838400057%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (3h & 54m) > nospam |
In article <qmlm1ahfrpdbqummbsaimpkjka6kussi8j@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
Eric Stevensonce again, in a non-destructive workflow, unsharp mask along with everything else *is* reversible. this is a fact no matter how much you and floyd argue otherwise.
This discussion started when in response to Kevin McMurtrie Floyd wrote in Message-ID: <87bnqh1mby.fld@barrow.com>
">The digital form of unsharp mask is the inverse of a blur.nospamEric Stevens
There's both a frequency (diameter) and an intensity.
Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.
UnSharpMask is not reversible."
You completely failed to understand what Floyd was talking about and have added your inestimable contributions ever since.
in a destructive workflow, it's not reversible, which is what floyd is referring to. it's all he knows.
fortunately, that limitation can be easily overcome by switching to a non-destructive workflow.
09/13/2014-
