If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Sandman
wrote: Floyd has no idea what he's talking about, so as soon as someone knows what they're talking about, they're by definition not talking about whatever it is Floyd is babbling about. yep. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: We are descending into silliness here. A reversible process is one where any changes made in the execution of that process can be reversed to revert to the original state. A non-destructive work flow does not make a process reversible. All it does is let you have another go at a process using different settings. which means it can be reversed. |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-17 09:22:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:27:43 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-17 04:08:19 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:53:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-16 10:36:29 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said: Savageduck wrote: So? The fact still remains, regardless of personal opinion about Adobe, Lightroom, & Photoshop, those using that software have the ability to maintain a fully non-destructive, and reversible workflow, that includes reversing the effects of any filter including USM. It's not a "reversible" workflow. The correct terms would be either a non-linear undo, or simply that it can be reverted. I guess you are in complete denial with regard to the capabilities of current versions of Lightroom & Photoshop, so it doesn?t really matter what you want the correct terms would be. I will take ?reversible? out of my obviously too hyperbolic for you, description of the capabilities of those Adobe products, and just continue to use the word Adobe uses, ?non-destructive?. âEUR¦and if you are going to start that reverse mathematical operation from a compressed, & lossy JPEG, good luck getting back to where you started. Your workflow, even if non-destructive, will be totally unable to deal with reverting any previous editing with the exception of processes, such as sharpen (not USM), that are reversible. It seems that you have never worked with a truly non-destructive workflow, with Photoshop and Lightroom I have a totally reversible workflow which can deal with reverting crops, spot removal, content aware fill, content aware move, any of the various grad filters available, and filters, including the notorious USM. The reason that all this argument is underway is that you and nospam fail to recognise that a "totally reversible work flow" is one thing but a reversible process is another. What Floyd has been saying is that sharpening with a high-pass filter is basically the same as Gaussian blur except that one goes forward and the other goes backwards. Whatever you do with one can be undone with the other. The reverse process performed on a lossy, compressed JPEG is not going to reverse the HPF to return to the original state. That was lost once the save was executed. That's why I never included a conversion to JPG in my example of a reversible process. …but that genius Floyd did. This is not the same as just cancelling the operation as you do when you delete it from a sidecar file. We have an apples & oranges issue here I have been speaking of the two varieties of non-destructive workflow available to PS and LR users, they are not the same. What you have said above is sort of correct for Lightroom, but not for Photoshop where there are no sidecar, or catalog files. you should learn the difference. As I have said in some other responses of mine, the JPEG which might be produced is just a compressed, lossy snapshot of the actual, non-destructively adjusted, and uncompressed layered PSD, or TIF. It is best to consider it a version, and there is no point in even trying to rework it. Call it ?version-1.jpg?. Once you are done with readjusting the layered PSD/TIF you can produce ?version-2.jpg?, and still have the ability to return to the working PSD/TIF to produce a ?version-3.jpg?. The product of a non-destructive workflow is not a JPEG, and there is little point in doing any reversion work in those JPEGs other than some polishing tweaks. Obviously there is nothing I can say or demonstrate to convince you that I am able to do what I say I can with LR &/or PS. You are stuck in a World void of Adobe where you spin your knowledge of fundamental technical minutia into a shield of denial. I will not be, nor do I strive to be the the technical wizard you obviously are, but this is one of those times where you have not moved with the times. As I said when I first came into this thread, I fully expected you to tell me I was wrong and an ignoramus (which I might well be regarding some stuff), and you met that expectation, and there isn?t much point in going any further and we should just agree to disagree, you in your World, and me in mine. You could always try to understand what he (and I) are really saying. It's not what you seem to think it is. What you claim isn’t actually 100% possible once you are trying to reverse changes to a JPEG. It might look close, but an exact reversal, never. However, I can make that exact reversal using the tools I (& you) have available in Photoshop. No one who understood what we were trying to talk about would claim that a JPG conversion is a reversible process. …but that genius Floyd did. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-17 09:28:46 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:29:01 -0400, nospam wrote: Le Snip users edit their images with lightroom (or aperture) and can change anything at any time at any point in the future, *including* altering unsharp mask. to them, *everything* is reversible. that's the *reality*. Which has nothing to with whether or not a process is reversible. to put it another way, i can change the amount of unsharp mask on an image i processed a year ago, without having to redo *anything* else i did. all of the retouching, white balance, etc. remain the same (unless i choose to adjust those too). But you can't do that once the image has been exported. That is only a version, or JPEG snapshot of the current state, that had been exported. It is done, and if there is an issue forget reworking that. The working PSD/TIF is still available for revision and fully capable of creating version #2, version#3, and so on. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-17 09:39:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:39:44 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-17 04:23:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said: Le Snip What then is a reversible process? We are descending into silliness here. A reversible process is one where any changes made in the execution of that process can be reversed to revert to the original state. A non-destructive work flow does not make a process reversible. All it does is let you have another go at a process using different settings. Huh! I guess you just don’t get it. That CC subscription is so obviously wasted when you seem to have missed a key feature of Photoshop, and would rather go your way than learn how to actually use what you are paying for. Once that working copy has had USM applied, the layers merged, and compressed into a JPEG (a destructive action) then Floyd is correct, the function can no longer be reversed. However, Floyd doesn't see the concept of the non-destructive workflow because he doesn't, or appears not to use one. He certainly isn't using what is available to those running either Lightroom or Photoshop CS6/CC/CC 2014, and ignores that some here have the ability to take advantage of a non-destructive, or "reversible" workflow because of the software tools installed on their computers. Floyd wasn't even talking about it! He was talking about different sharpening algorithms. Floyd specifically addressed high pass sharpening (HPS) in response to Alfred's query regarding USM. We ended up discussing HPS & USM and the qualities of both. I know what Floyd was talking about. Then why are you rabitting on about non-destructive work flows? Because there is more to this thread, and NG than the arcane pontificating of Floyd D, and more over he, or anybody else here doesn’t control the flow and drift of any thread. Floyd was trying to address the question raised by the OP. The arrival of nospam and then you on the scene confusing non-destructive editing with whether a process is reversible or not has brought all sensible discussion to a halt. There is much more to post processing than Floyd’s way of doing things. Even though he denies the reality of the tools available to the Photoshop user. I'm afraid it's not a turf war. What Floyd said was perfectly correct and fundamental. It's quite independent of the editing software. Sigh… -- Regards, Savageduck |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-17 09:42:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:42:32 -0700, Savageduck wrote: Le Snip https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Photo%20Jan%2005%2C%2012%2038%2052.jpg I'm disappointed to hear that. It doesn't take much to disappoint you then. Given that arrogant arcane Floydian bloviation, I probably should have used this one for him rather than that more subtle expression above. I just restrained myself too much. https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ -- Regards, Savageduck |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-17 09:46:23 +0000, Sandman said:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Savageduck: It seems that you have never worked with a truly non-destructive workflow, with Photoshop and Lightroom I have a totally reversible workflow which can deal with reverting crops, spot removal, content aware fill, content aware move, any of the various grad filters available, and filters, including the notorious USM. The reason that all this argument is underway is that you and nospam fail to recognise that a "totally reversible work flow" is one thing but a reversible process is another. Not really, no. reversible adjective able to be reversed, in particular: • (of the effects of a process or condition) capable of being reversed so that the previous state or situation is restored That fits both scenarios. Floyd is stubbornly trying to force everyone else to have "reversible" mean that a process needs another process to reverse its effect, but that's not how the word works. Floyd is notoriously ignorant about word meanings, so no surprise there. The undo function in Photoshop makes any process reversible, simple as that. If you want to be able to save the file and reverse USM when opening it again, use smart filters. That means that USM is 100% reversible at any point in the future, on any image. What Floyd has been saying is that sharpening with a high-pass filter is basically the same as Gaussian blur except that one goes forward and the other goes backwards. Whatever you do with one can be undone with the other. This is not the same as just cancelling the operation as you do when you delete it from a sidecar file. Of course it's not the same. That doesn't mean that deleting an instruction that leads to a specific result doesn't mean the instruction is reversible. The fact that you *can* delete it means that it is by definition reversible. In fact, "Reversible" comes from the word "reverse", which means "move back". The undo function is the most obvious example of a reversible process. Deleting (or turning off) an instruction in a non-destructive workflow reverses its affect on the result. Ta da!! Give that man a cigar! -- Regards, Savageduck |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/17/2014 1:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-17 01:03:35 +0000, PeterN said: On 9/16/2014 4:36 PM, nospam wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are non-destructive. true, but i was thinking of lightroom where no additional steps are required because everything is non-destructive. with photoshop, the user has to take additional steps to be non-destructive. The additional step is one click to open all objects in PS as a smart object. not always. When opening a RAW ifile in PS from ACR, when wouldn't that work? Easily done. Just remember that any content aware fill or editing cannot be done on an SO. So do the spot removal in ACR. Open as *Smart Object* after making ACR adjustments, you can always double click on that SO background layer to return to ACR and readjust. Make adjustments to taste, and save layered PSD One caveat when it comes to sharing the layered file, it is huge because of the layers. The example PSD below runs 800+MB so I won't be posting that here,unless there are individual request for email link delivery. So I end up with this in PS. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_905.jpg and a PSD with Smart Objects and all adjustments intact ready for any revision, saved to its very own CC folder, or wherever you want it. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_907.jpg Since you are not using Lightroom, to get a JPEG go to File-Save for Web. configure the JPEG dimensions, compression, etc. and Save. That is simple enough, and the working files remain intact in PS. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_906.jpg That results in a JPEG and I can still return to the layered JPEG to produce a different version just by tweaking/reediting or removing layers. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DNC6132-SW-1.jpg All very true. And I personally do not use smart objects. But my question to nosense was not answered. -- PeterN |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/17/2014 1:07 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: topics drift. deal with it. Learn the difference between a natural drift, and a deliberate drift to avoid a proper response to the issue. We all know yo never do that. correct. i don't. And hence you admit that you never provide proper responses, and instead merely clutter the group with nonsensical arguing. i said no such thing. you, however, will argue about even the slightest thing to avoid admitting you don't know something. You mean like how you answered my request for more details on opening RAW files? -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sharpening | Alfred Molon[_4_] | Digital Photography | 23 | April 3rd 13 06:57 PM |
Sharpening | Ockham's Razor | Digital Photography | 11 | February 6th 07 08:35 PM |
Am I over-sharpening? | Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address | Digital Photography | 12 | February 9th 06 06:58 AM |
RAW sharpening | embee | Digital Photography | 11 | December 24th 04 03:43 PM |
D70 on-camera sharpening vs. Photoshop sharpening | john | Digital Photography | 7 | July 23rd 04 10:55 AM |