Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 09/20/2014 05:32 (09/20/2014 15:32) |
Message-ID | <g7tp1a9lcieralmgaumo5urdhiqp4t4o62@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
Followups | nospam (19m) |
nospamDuh!
In article <v4kp1alrgpj4ik0omiu76lccp5gen0q69c@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamSandmanEric Stevens
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.
I *know* how he used the term and I have already explained in detail. A non-destructive work flow is not a fully reversible process.
it is definitely reversible. that's the point of a non-destructive workflow.
Should you have put a smiley on this. --Eric Stevensnospam
Say I have a bomb, and cause it to explode. If I then with superhuman speed capture all the escaping gases and stuff them back into the ruptured casing, and then slam the casing shut, I might be said to have fully reversed the process. (In fact, that would not be correct in thermodynamic terms).
Say I have another bomb and after I have exploded the first bomb I put the second bomb in it's place. It might now look as if the first bomb had never explodedbut I have not reversed the changes to the first bomb: I have merely substituted for it.
bombs are not a non-destructive process.