Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Floyd L. Davidson |
| Date | 2014-09-18 09:15 (2014-09-17 23:15) |
| Message-ID | <87tx45v1px.fld@barrow.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (29m) > Floyd L. Davidson Sandman (58m) |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>wrote:
nospamLook up the common meaning of the term "reversible process", and stop making absurd claims. Your problem is not knowing what we are talking about, even now after all this discussion and effort to explain it.
In article <lbqk1adl3p9v8m9gj7jen4cbmlum8a7k2f@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamEric StevensnospamEric StevensSandmanSavageduckEric Stevens
If you make the adjustments in Photoshop with a non-destructive workflow there is no use of sidecar files or catalog entries as in Lightroom.
True, but this has nothing to do with whether a process is reversible or not.
Of course it does. Non-destructive adjustments means they are reversible.
Not in the strictly technical sense in which Floyd was using the term.
that's the whole problem.
floyd cannot acknowledge that there are other completely valid meanings.
If you want to argue with what he said then you have to use the same meaning that he did.
i used the common meaning of the term reversible.
he is using his own narrow definition and intentionally dismissing *anything* else.Because a typical dictionary may have 14 meanings for a word is not a license for a reader to choose which one to abuse. The *writer* chooses, not the reader.
-- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
2014-09-13-
