Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 09/21/2014 02:59 (09/20/2014 17:59) |
| Message-ID | <2014092017594419589-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (29m) |
On 2014-09-20 23:14:24 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:
Eric StevensHe has a voice, he has an opinion. Why should he be disqualified from stating it? The last time I looked Usenet was a free speech forum, one of the last in existence.
On 20 Sep 2014 16:09:13 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:SandmanEric Stevens
In article <877g0yqyfs.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:SandmanThe point we're making fun of is that you did add a lossy middle step to your claim about the first process being reversed by the third process with a lossy process in the middle.Floyd L. Davidson
The JPEG lossy format doesn't allow the original image to be resurected, but it doesn't prevent reversing the sharpening.
And that's what we're making fun of. The sharpening was added before the lossy process was added. You can counteract it, and you may be satisfied with it, but you haven't reversed it.
You are not qualified to voice an opinion.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
09/13/2014-
