Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 09/21/2014 04:38 (09/21/2014 14:38) |
| Message-ID | <l8es1a53qm4347f24glcoou31mccp6knf5@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (19m) > Eric Stevens Sandman (8h & 3m) > Eric Stevens |
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:08:59 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamThere is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully reversible' as used in physics. In using those words in that way he was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there is no substitute. --
In article <mmas1atejphaqv99hb2cv9i1mddfgs3aer@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensnospamEric 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.
I've never denied it.
yes you have.Eric Stevensnospam
It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it.
it is, but in a different way.
two different uses of the term.
the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his ass.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
09/13/2014-
