Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Eric Stevens |
Date | 09/20/2014 12:26 (09/20/2014 22:26) |
Message-ID | <04lq1apqp3ju9qb8s0bged26jvdiuac5jq@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (1h & 29m) > Eric Stevens |
SandmanIt's not false, I can assure you. Have you looked at your own files?
In article <1bhp1a9t7296qfn858npvei673csf7sagj@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmannospamSandmanEric StevensEric Stevensnospam
And I have pointed out that you cannot reverse a change which has not actually been made. Even if it is reversible, you can't reverse something before you have done it.
the change *has* been made, just not to the pixels themselves.
And to what has the change been made?
To the pixels. nospam is incorrect here. All LR adjustments are applied to a preview file and saved to disk.
the changes are rendered on the fly and may be cached to disk (which is the preview file you're talking about). the latter is optional.
It's not optional. All images in LR are always rendered as previews. They are kept inside your LR library.
That's true, but all the preview images I have looked at are between about 50% and 20% of the size of the original.
This is false.
You are suggesting that files exported from LR are based on a degraded (i.e. downsized) version of the original file. I very much doubt that that is the case.Eric StevensSandman
They clearly can't contain as much data or be reconstructed to form a final export image.
Depends on whether or not you're exporting a full resolution image, Eric. Just as I said.
They are an edited version of a downsized copy of the original files.Eric StevensSandman
In otherwords, what you have in these files is not an edited version of the original image.
Incorrect. Otherwise they wouldn't be previews.