Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/21/2014 04:58 (09/20/2014 22:58) |
| Message-ID | <200920142258142106%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (2h & 12m) |
In article <l8es1a53qm4347f24glcoou31mccp6knf5@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
this isn't about physics.Eric StevensnospamEric 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.
There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully reversible' as used in physics.
it's about a non-destructive workflow.
In using those words in that way he was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there is no substitute.however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid.
09/13/2014-
