Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 2014-09-17 07:29 (2014-09-17 01:29) |
| Message-ID | <170920140129017371%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Floyd L. Davidson (1h & 19m) > nospam Eric Stevens (3h & 59m) > nospam |
In article <5u2i1a1oelhg7khlkd5nndl3dijtdt4bpd@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
Eric Stevensof course i can.
I was saying that I doubt nospam could get his mind around the thought that "A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing". The evidence is that he (and you) can't.
what you and floyd fail to understand is none of that matters to anyone except you and floyd.
users are interested in getting the best results with the least amount of hassle. they don't want math tutorials or whether a function has an inverse.
users edit their images with lightroom (or aperture) and can change anything at any time at any point in the future, *including* altering unsharp mask. to them, *everything* is reversible. that's the *reality*.
to put it another way, i can change the amount of unsharp mask on an image i processed a year ago, without having to redo *anything* else i did. all of the retouching, white balance, etc. remain the same (unless i choose to adjust those too).
2014-09-13-
