Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 2014-09-20 05:51 (2014-09-19 23:51) |
| Message-ID | <190920142351490718%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Eric Stevens |
| Followups | Floyd L. Davidson (49m) |
In article <g7tp1a9lcieralmgaumo5urdhiqp4t4o62@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:
then why are you arguing otherwise?Eric StevensnospamSandmanEric Stevens
I don't care how you think he "used" the term. A non-destructive workflow is a reversible process in every sense of the term.
I *know* how he used the term and I have already explained in detail. A non-destructive work flow is not a fully reversible process.
it is definitely reversible. that's the point of a non-destructive workflow.
Duh!
no.Eric StevensSay I have a bomb, and cause it to explode. If I then with superhuman speed capture all the escaping gases and stuff them back into the ruptured casing, and then slam the casing shut, I might be said to have fully reversed the process. (In fact, that would not be correct in thermodynamic terms).nospam
Say I have another bomb and after I have exploded the first bomb I put the second bomb in it's place. It might now look as if the first bomb had never explodedbut I have not reversed the changes to the first bomb: I have merely substituted for it.
bombs are not a non-destructive process.
Should you have put a smiley on this.
2014-09-13-
