Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 09/19/2014 09:11 (09/19/2014 09:11) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm1nm95.b9l.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (19h & 5m) > Sandman |
In article <180920141356374682%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
That's how they *want* to use it, and that's the only way Floyd *knows* how to use it since he has very rudimentary tools and his only chance to reverse a process is to counteract it with another process.nospamSandmanEric 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.
they're using the term process to mean the mathematical transform itself.
Serious photographers have used more modern tools for decades that doesn't hinge on this primitive way to deal with image processing. Some people are stuck in the caves, still.
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.Of course. Which means that any given modern and serious photographer has a image processing workflow that is always 100% reversible. And that also includes amateurs as well! Technology, isn't it awesome.
-- Sandman[.net]
09/13/2014-
