Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | Savageduck |
| Date | 2014-09-21 15:20 (2014-09-21 06:20) |
| Message-ID | <2014092106205187866-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
On 2014-09-21 10:41:47 +0000, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>said:
SandmanIt's a good thing it isn't 1960 and we are trying to figure out a wet darkroom chemistry reversible process. Damn! It's nice not to have those lingering fragrances around any more.
In article <l8es1a53qm4347f24glcoou31mccp6knf5@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:SandmanEric Stevensnospam
It's just that it's not fully reversible in the strict sense that Floyd used it.
it is, but in a different way.two different uses of the term.the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his ass.Eric Stevens
There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully reversible' as used in physics.
Which is irrelevant, since no one in this thread has talked about a reversible process as used in physics.
-- Regards,
Savageduck
2014-09-13-
