Skip to main content
news

Re: Lenses and sharpening

Sandman
SubjectRe: Lenses and sharpening
FromSandman
Date09/19/2014 08:50 (09/19/2014 08:50)
Message-ID<slrnm1nl1m.b9l.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsEric Stevens
FollowupsEric Stevens (19h & 11m) > Sandman

In article <qogm1a5hikba6q578as28s1el6u3l7v9se@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman
Well, we all know that YOU rarely have the first clue about what you're talking about, so I have no problem understanding why you're here supporting ignorant Floyd.

Eric Stevens
Floyd's usage is strictly in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_process_%28thermodynamics%29

Sandman
Great input, if the topic had been about thermodynamics.

Eric Stevens
The article is about thermodynamics. The concepts and the mathematics and the concept of entropy apply to a number of topics including information processing which, in turn, includes image processing.

Incorrect.

as it applies information theory. If you think there is no room for reversible processes in information theory see http://tinyurl.com/otp5pug

Sandman
Why can't you read?

1. Floyd thinks that HPS + JPG compression can be reversed. It can not.

Eric Stevens
He never claimed that the JPG can be reversed.

Yes, he did. His example included JPG compression and the recieving end being able to reverse a process that took place before the JPG compression.

As I have already written, he said that the original image can be recovered after sharpening by HPS even after the image has been saved as a JPG.

Which is incorrect.

Sandman
2. Floyd thinks that a non-destructive workflow is not a reversible process, it is.

Eric Stevens
It's not a reversible process in the way that he used the term.

I don't care how you think he "used" the term. A non-destructive workflow is a reversible process in every sense of the term.

You previously quoted from a dictionary. Here is what the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary says of this particular usage of 'reversible':

My quote was *from* Oxford.

"2 Physics. Of a change or process: that is capable of complete and detailed reversal; spec designating or undergoing an ideal change in which a system is thermodynamic equilibrium at all times."

Funny how you had to ignore the part of the Oxford dictionary that wasn't about physics - which has nothing to do with image processing - and was specifically about "of the effects of a process or condition" which is exactly what we're talking about:

(of the effects of a process or condition) capable of being reversed so that the previous state or situation is restored

Don't quote dictionaries if you don't know which part of them to quote.

Why not quote the part about chemistry while you're at it, Eric?

Chemistry (of a colloid) capable of being changed from a gel into a sol by a reversal of the treatment that turns the sol into a gel.

Obviously Floyd doesn't know what a reversible process is, since he can't change the image from a gel to a sol. Right?

As nospam has so often told us, Lightroom (and other software using side car files)

Lightroom. Does. Not. Use. Sidecar. Files.

do not actually change the file being edited until it is in the process of being exported.

Incorrect. The file is *never* changed. Lightroom has a preview file that is constantly being updated to reflect the adjustment changes you make. This is a JPG file that resides on your hard drive at all times. For every single adjustment you make in Lightroom, it creates a current-state preview file on disk. The original file is never touched.

In most case, all you see on the screen is a simplified simulacrum of what the edited file will look like, when the editing instructions are executed.

Incorrect, what you see on the screen is exactly what the exported file - if you even export it - will look like. It's not simplified, and it's not a representation of something else.

Once you export the file - that's it. You cannot reverse the changes.

Incorrect. All changes are still non-destructive in your workflow and you can reverse 100% of them at all times. Just because you can't reverse them *in the exported file* doesn't mean they're not reversible. This is what you need to learn.

All you can do is edit the original all over again but this time slightly differently.

I.e. it is 100% reversible.

Now it's interesting that Lightroom does incorporate something a little bit like the reversible process that Floyd was talking about but neither nospam or Savageduck seem to realise the fact. See http://tinyurl.com/p5sus42 From blur to sharpness on the one slider. But this is not actually a reversible process: it's a change in the instruction to the final edit which will only be executed when the image is exported.

It is executed when it is made. Nothing is excuted only when the file is exported. You don't know how this works.

I do not know the type of sharpening used by Lightroom or whether or not it is truly reversible.

It is 100% truly reversible.

Sandman
Just the plain facts.

Eric Stevens
I'm afraid they are not as plain or as straightforward as you would like to have them.

Yes they are, you just don't understand them. Nothing to be ashamed of, there are lots of things you don't understand.

-- Sandman[.net]

Eric Stevens (19h & 11m) > Sandman