Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | PeterN |
| Date | 2014-09-16 23:52 (2014-09-16 17:52) |
| Message-ID | <lvabda01js@news4.newsguy.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (4m) |
On 9/16/2014 4:36 PM, nospam wrote:
nospamLearn the difference between a natural drift, and a deliberate drift to avoid a proper response to the issue. We all know yo never do that.
In article <878uljzfkd.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:nospamFloyd L. DavidsonnospamSavageduckFloyd L. Davidson
So? The fact still remains, regardless of personal opinion about Adobe, Lightroom, & Photoshop, those using that software have the ability to maintain a fully non-destructive, and reversible workflow, that includes reversing the effects of any filter including USM.
It's not a "reversible" workflow. The correct terms would be either a non-linear undo, or simply that it can be reverted.
the correct term and the one used by everyone except you is a non-destructible workflow.
But a non-destructive workflow is not a "reversible workflow".
it can be.Floyd L. Davidsonnospam
Which doesn't make any difference anyway, as the topic is sharpening algorithms, not editor workflow design.
topics drift. deal with it.
-- PeterN
2014-09-13-
