Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 09/20/2014 18:14 (09/20/2014 18:14) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm1raga.qtr.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | Savageduck (2h & 26m) |
In article <200920141056484999%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
Yes, they are.nospamSandmanSandmannospam
They are, however, required in Lightroom's workflow, which is non-destructive.
they are not required at all.
They are.
no they're not.
a non-destructive workflow will work without them, but it will be slow (hello aperture 1.0).*Lightroom* won't work without them. A non-destructive workflow, generally speaking, can, but Lightroom does not.
Aperture 1.0 also used previews, just like Lightroom. And 1.0 was slower for a numbr of reasons. Lightroom 1 wasn't a speed demon either, on the other hand.
YOu can use it as a parametric editor, yes.nospamSandmannospamphotoshop is a pixel editor but can be used in a non-destructive manner. that doesn't make it a parametric editor.Sandman
Using it as I described above makes it one, yes.
no it doesn't. photoshop is not a parametric editor.
Parametric image editing is a class of non-destructive image editing where the editing software does not alter original files. Photoshop can be used in exactly this manner, and you know it.
it can be used non-destructively but it's not a parametric editor.
Incorrect.Sandmannospam
When used this way - using smart filters and adjustment layers, Photoshop *IS* a parametric image editor.
no
-- Sandman[.net]
09/13/2014-
