Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Savageduck |
Date | 09/21/2014 04:40 (09/20/2014 19:40) |
Message-ID | <2014092019403861431-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
Followups | Eric Stevens (2h & 23m) PeterN (16h & 17m) |
Eric StevensWhat I am saying is, this tread has become very silly with all sorts of folks disagreeing, and talking at cross purposes.
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:01:29 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:SavageduckEric Stevens
On 2014-09-21 01:34:40 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:Eric StevensSavageduck
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:38:30 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:nospamEric Stevens
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.
I've never denied it. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it.
Floyd is using Lightroom & Photoshop? Amazing!!! Hell, or is it Barrow (that is more likely) has frozen over.
You really do have a problem looking directly at what I have been saying.