Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 2014-09-18 11:14 (2014-09-18 21:14) |
| Message-ID | <bg8l1a97jt385u28t6d063kdfqmjtdch24@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (5h & 55m) > Eric Stevens |
On 18 Sep 2014 08:10:13 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
SandmanI disagree with you. Floyd disagrees with you. Leaving out the question of native language, what experience or training have you had to qualify you to dispute Floyd and my use of the term "reversible process"?
In article <0njk1apc99b22v5jksl3jr2v0jvmt65fp7@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric StevensSandmanEric StevensEric StevensSavageduck
The water is muddied by the several applications which make use of a sidecar file of some kind to preserve a list of edits which are only executed when the image file is exported from the editing environment. Modifying a sidecar file by deleting an editing process from it does not make that process reversible. It merely makes that process asthough it never was.
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.
Yes, in a very strictly technical sense. In every sense of the word.
--SandmanA tip for the future - whenever Floyd says anything, it's a safe bet to assume the exact opposite is true.Eric Stevens
Not so, I'm afraid.
100% so.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
2014-09-13-
