Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2014-09-19 09:14 (2014-09-19 09:14) |
| Message-ID | <slrnm1nme7.b9l.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
In article <7gmm1a9hmr3iro23u60db84s8vt9tspn94@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:
No, you haven't. You've pasted in irrelvant links about thermodynamics that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.Eric StevensSandmanEric Stevensnospam
It may be for your definition of 'reversible' but it is not so in the sense of the standard meaning of 'reversible process'.
i never said 'reversible process'.
But you could have, and nothing would have changed. Adding the word "process" doesn't change anything. It's not like there's only one valid way to interprete "reversible process" in relation to image processing.
I've already pointed you to the definition of 'reversible process'.
It's not something you just pluck out of a dictionary.Of course it is. They're words, Eric. They all exist in the dictionary. I know you want to pretend that the expression "reversible process" can mean only one single thing and that your only support for this is how it is used in a totally unrelated context and then you want to apply that to everything else.
English doesn't work that way, and after all the time I've spent educating you in English, I would have imagined that you would have learned something by now.
Haha!Sandman
Every step of adding adjustments to an image can be called part of a process, or a process in itself. Modern software can reverse that process by deleting the steps taken.Eric StevensnospamSandman
i said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, and it is. period.
I have no idea why Eric is hell bent on supporting Floyd while he's digging himself further and further down into the abyss.
It could be that I know what he is talking about. I'm surprised that so few others do.
-- Sandman[.net]
2014-09-13-
