Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 09/21/2014 03:34 (09/21/2014 13:34) |
| Message-ID | <mmas1atejphaqv99hb2cv9i1mddfgs3aer@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | Savageduck (26m) > Eric Stevens nospam (34m) > Eric Stevens |
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:38:30 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamI've never denied it. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it. --
In article <pm6s1a5nt7enc9au0c70b3nkk6j3cge7ph@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensEric Stevensnospam
Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who understand all this.
i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bullshit being spewed here.
I'm sure they do.
so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
09/13/2014-
