Savageduck
On 2014-09-21 02:33:40 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:

Eric Stevens
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:01:29 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>wrote:

Savageduck
On 2014-09-21 01:34:40 +0000, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>said:

Eric Stevens
On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:38:30 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
In article <pm6s1a5nt7enc9au0c70b3nkk6j3cge7ph@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Eric Stevens
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.

nospam
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.

Eric Stevens
I'm sure they do.

nospam
so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.

Eric Stevens
I've never denied it. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it.

Savageduck
Floyd is using Lightroom & Photoshop? Amazing!!! Hell, or is it Barrow (that is more likely) has frozen over.

Eric Stevens
You really do have a problem looking directly at what I have been saying.

Savageduck
What I am saying is, this tread has become very silly with all sorts of folks disagreeing, and talking at cross purposes.