Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
From | Sandman |
Date | 09/21/2014 12:52 (09/21/2014 12:52) |
Message-ID | <slrnm1tc0k.uqn.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
Followups | Eric Stevens (11h & 35m) > Sandman |
Haha, no it isn't.nospamEric Stevens
this isn't about physics.
It's an aspect of physics when you try answering Albert Molon's very first question "Has somebody analysed this (i.e. how to best sharpen an image, what unsharpness can be eliminated in post-processing)?"
Floyd gave a perfectly accurate and relevant answer to that question and you have been fucking up the thread ever since.Floyd gave an ignorant and misdirected answer based on his own limited knowledge and workflow in the area.
I bet that even now you will say something irrelevant about a non-destructive work flow. How the hell do you think that's going to fix a lens problem?
Idiot.Eric, the great debater.
Not to the OP. If the OP had listened to Floyd (let's pray he never did), he would perhaps have been under the impression that he should use a specific sharpening technique because it wouldn't be reversible. Since it *IS* reversible in modern software, that's misdirection from Floyd and unhelpful to the OP.nospam
it's about a non-destructive workflow.Eric StevensEric Stevensnospam
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.
And utterly irrelevant.