Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Savageduck |
Date | 09/20/2014 00:02 (09/19/2014 15:02) |
Message-ID | <201409191502232281-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
Followups | nospam (1h & 11m) > Savageduck |
nospamYup that creates a specific Adjustment layer.
In article <slrnm1ovjl.d9b.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:nospamSandmanSandmannospam
I.e. if you open a photo in Photoshop and click the Levels button in the palette, which is the easiest way to apply a levels adjustment, it's fully reversible. Only if you select Image ->Adjustments ->Levels do you get a levels adjustments that isn't reversible.
the easiest way to do levels is pick levels in the adjustments menu which is not reversible.
How is that the easiest way when the levels button is right there on screen?
that's new and not always visible and merely a shortcut for a new layer.
the menu choice for levels has been there forever. command/control-l, for levels.Using the menu or shortcut, does not open a separate, or duplicate layer, it opens the specific adjustment dialog window, and applies the parameters to whatever layer is active.
-- Regards,nospamSandmannospamiphoto is not non-destructive. it makes a copy of an image when you change it and writes the changes to the copy.Sandman
I.e. exactly like Lightroom. LR has a better UI for enabling and disabling effects, but the process is the same.
iphoto is nothing at all like lightroom, other than casually in that they manage assets.
They are non-destructive in exactly the same way, which is what I was commenting on.
they aren't.
iphoto makes a second copy of any changes. it doesn't maintain a database of changes.nospamif you quit, it's not available.Sandman
It's because "revert to previous" undo's all the edits you've done in one session.
with lightroom, you can change anything at any time, regardless of session.nospamSandmanSandmannospam
It's not as sophisticated as LR or Aperture, of course, but it is 100% non-destructive.
it's not even close to either.
As far as non-destrictivness goes - it's identical.
no, it's not.