Skip to main content
news

Re: Lenses and sharpening

nospam
SubjectRe: Lenses and sharpening
Fromnospam
Date2014-09-17 12:13 (2014-09-17 06:13)
Message-ID<170920140613434307%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsFloyd L. Davidson

In article <87egvayc7n.fld@barrow.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd@apaflo.com>wrote:

Eric Stevens
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.

nospam
of course i can.

Floyd L. Davidson
After how many exchanges of your insipid messages now, if you haven't, you probably simply can't.

i can, and i also understand the difference between a function and a workflow, which you clearly do not.

nospam
what you and floyd fail to understand is none of that matters to anyone except you and floyd.

Floyd L. Davidson
"Anyone" being only you then. Everyone who has an interest in the OP's questions about sharpening is very interested in the fact that USM is non-reversible.

the original question was about what's the best way to sharpen an image, not whether it's reversible.

once again, with a non-destructive workflow, *everything* is reversible and/or adjustable after the fact, regardless of the mathematical transform involved.

nospam
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.

Floyd L. Davidson
Yes, some users want cookie cutter solutions and have no ability to make use of, or understand, the underlying technical details. Unfortunately for you and other like that, becoming expert at most very technical persuits such as photography requires getting past the cookie cutter.

Memorizing all the details in a "Photoshop for Dummies" book won't make you a photographer, and won't help the rest of those who aspire to such who have to read this unending diatribe you produce in this newsgroup.

there you go with your condescending bullshit.

users do not want to study the math behind image processing.

they want results with minimal hassle.

having capable tools that simplify things empowers people to create results they could not have otherwise done before, which is a very, very good thing.

it's assholes like you that want to keep things complicated just so they can brag about how they can do things that other people can't.

fortunately, people much smarter than you are have put their knowledge into various apps so that one does not need an advanced degree in image processing just to be able take a photo and post-process it into a work of art.

nospam
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*.

Floyd L. Davidson
No, it's just a very narrow view that includes only the simplistic workflow that you've been able to achieve for producing cookies.

Given real world problems, you offer Chocolate Chip cookies in two varieties: with and without the chips.

statements like that show just how little you know.

there is nothing simplistic or narrow about a non-destructive workflow.

in fact, a non-destructive workflow is often a bit confusing to many people when they first see it, but once they use it, they see how useful it is and wonder why they didn't make the change sooner.

nospam
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).

Floyd L. Davidson
And you can indeed do that with the non-linear undo facility at your disposal. That is a pretty narrow case though, and it is not what "reversible" is all about.

it is not a non-linear undo and there's absolutely nothing narrow about what i described.

as usual, you're talking out your ass, trying to tell people who use a non-destructive workflow what it is they're doing and not doing and making a huge fool of yourself in the process.

For example, the copy of that image you sent to others, perhaps at a large pixel dimension, cannot be resampled to a lower pixel dimension for printing in a brochure at 3x3 inches because the USM, which was excessive to start with, cannot be reversed. If you had used another form of sharpen for better effect, the copy would have been useable. That is not an insignificant point. They end of rejecting your image, and buy one from a photographer.

statements like that is clear proof you haven't any clue about what you're talking about.