Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Floyd L. Davidson |
Date | 09/20/2014 06:40 (09/19/2014 20:40) |
Message-ID | <8738bmsy3y.fld@barrow.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | nospam |
nospamTalk about a logical gaffe...
In article <g7tp1a9lcieralmgaumo5urdhiqp4t4o62@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensnospamSandmanEric 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.
Duh!
then why are you arguing otherwise?nospamEric StevensEric 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.
Should you have put a smiley on this.
no.