Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 09/22/2014 07:13 (09/22/2014 01:13) |
| Message-ID | <220920140113390897%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Eric Stevens (4h & 45m) > nospam |
In article <j0bv1ap9rhfh6o15vb62p5mshs525klsv6@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
that's not what a non-destructive workflow is.Eric StevensnospamSandmanEric Stevens
And it's also born out of ignorance, because such a consideration is only important if you're using ancient tools, which Floyd is. For him, he HAS to take such things into consideration because his tools are so primitive that if he makes a change he can't revert it unless it has a counter-algorithm.
Even with the most ancient of tools you can achieve the 'undo' or reversion effect you are talking about simply by doing your editing on a copy of the original. I was doing this with Photo Paint macros, backin the early 90's.
that does *not* give you the reversibility because it's not a non-destructive workflow.
Of course it is: I did it on a copy. Always, even now I never modify the original.
if we use your definition, then deleting a file is non-destructive because you can retrieve it from a backup.
also with your definition, you can't go back and change the amount of an adjustment unless you saved a copy of every possible value. worse, the number of files you'd need to save goes up dramatically the more adjustments you make.
therefore, your definition is wrong.
09/13/2014-
