Sandman
In article <62ns1at961lethttlvp4c99uvsspvggc7l@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

nospam
this isn't about physics.

Eric Stevens
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)?"

Sandman
Haha, no it isn't.

Eric Stevens
Floyd gave a perfectly accurate and relevant answer to that question and you have been fucking up the thread ever since.

Sandman
Floyd gave an ignorant and misdirected answer based on his own limited knowledge and workflow in the area.

The OP asked about sharpening only. He had soft lenses and wanted to know whether there were different sharpening techniques that work better with different lenses.

Floyd answered with some Adobe bashing and some general "this is the sharpening method I like" reply, not anything related to combat the softness of different lenses using different methods of sharpening.

Floyd then says that "the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur" and that "They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results"

And then adds this nugget: "UnSharpMask is not reversible"

Which is true - unless you use modern software that can reverse the effect of any image processing operation. Floyd doesn't use modern software, so to him, most image processing *is* irreversible, but for the OP, that's not the case. He could use any sharpening technique he likes and it would be fully reversible.

That said, the OP never even asked for a reversible process, this was just Floyds moronic mind wanting to inject some irrelevant misinformation into the thread.

Eric Stevens
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.

Sandman
Eric, the great debater.

nospam
it's about a non-destructive workflow.

Eric Stevens
In using those words in that way he was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there is no substitute.

nospam
however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid.

Eric Stevens
And utterly irrelevant.

Sandman
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.

You know, like we've said for days now.