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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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. the correct term and the one used by everyone except you is a non-destructible workflow. EURand 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. wrong. in a non-destructible workflow, *everything* can be altered, adjusted or removed at any time, including unsharp mask, cropping and retouching. you've clearly never used such a workflow and are talking out your butt. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/15/2014 1:32 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2014091510153710516-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: UnSharpMask is not reversible. it is with a non-destructive workflow. I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that. I know your feelings regarding Photoshop, but using Adobe's *Smart Object* concept provides a different level of non-destructive workflow. Creating a new adjustment layer and converting it to a *Smart Object* gives one the ability to apply any filter, including USM and any of the other sharpening tools or filters to that *Smart Object*. If the particular adjustment results are not to one's liking, then double clicking on that filter in the *Smart Object* layer will reopen the filter dialog to allow changes to the filter parameters. In the case shown below I have applied USM to a *Smart Object* and I can return to it as often as I want to adjust the USM parameters, all non-destructively. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_900.jpg 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. BTW most of us here do not have the ability to know what you were thinking of, unless you positively state what you were thinking of. I fully expect you to tell me I am wrong. of course. -- PeterN |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/15/2014 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-15 17:32:07 +0000, nospam said: In article 2014091510153710516-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: UnSharpMask is not reversible. it is with a non-destructive workflow. I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that. I know your feelings regarding Photoshop, but using Adobe's *Smart Object* concept provides a different level of non-destructive workflow. Creating a new adjustment layer and converting it to a *Smart Object* gives one the ability to apply any filter, including USM and any of the other sharpening tools or filters to that *Smart Object*. If the particular adjustment results are not to one's liking, then double clicking on that filter in the *Smart Object* layer will reopen the filter dialog to allow changes to the filter parameters. In the case shown below I have applied USM to a *Smart Object* and I can return to it as often as I want to adjust the USM parameters, all non-destructively. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_900.jpg 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. These days with my LR+PS workflow many of my images make a round trip from LR to PS and back to LR have all the layers retained. If I need a JPEG I use the LR export dialog. It is so easy just to do a save as jpeg, diretly from PS. Then the image goes back to what it was before the "save as." Yup! That is quite a different non-destructive process which quite a few here have yet to grasp even though they own LR. Guilty! Still learning it. Haben't really used it yet. -- PeterN |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/15/2014 4:33 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: UnSharpMask is not reversible. it is with a non-destructive workflow. I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that. i absolutely do know the meaning, since it's all i use. it's you who doesn't understand what a non-destructive workflow means A non-destructive workflow means you can *undo* and then *redo*. That is not a reversible function. it is to the user, which is what matters. in other words, the user sharpens today and then tomorrow or next month or whenever, they can readjust it or remove it entirely. that means to the user, it's reversible. that's why a non-destructive workflow is so powerful. Non-destructive is wonderful. It especially impresses Chicken Little, Humpty Dumpty and nospam and probably other cartoon characters. But no matter how you try to squirm, no matter how you squeal, *unsharp mask is a nonreversible function*. For example, you can add sharpening with a high pass sharpen tool to an image, save it as a JPEG, send it to someone else, and they can use a blur tool to reverse the sharpen. not perfectly. you even said 'virtually reverses' in your description. that's another way of saying 'there is some loss.' I don't see the term "virtually reverses" in that sentence. But the previous reference is in fact precise. The reason for saying "virtually reverses" is because if the sharpen and blur algorithms are not exactly the same and using precisely the correct parameters, the reversal isn't total. Which is to say that if it is done by inspection the result will be such that there is no visible difference. If it is actually measured, there will be an insignificant difference. I'm sorry that you have so much difficulty with precision use of language. In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results. If the sharpening is done with UnsharpMask that cannot be done. USM is not reversible. in a destructive workflow that is true. in a non-destructive workflow, it is not true. Obviously you didn't understand what the term "reversible" means, and thought non-destructive is the same. It isn't. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing Then read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undo And note the distinction between reversible and a non-linear undo. One problem is that you and nospam are talking bout two different things. And using the same word in two different ocntexts. Today if I needed to send an image for review and collaberative work, I would use one of the collaberative feature in CC. Another problem he is that nospam has all this argumentative theory, but has yet to prove that he even makes photographs. -- PeterN |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/15/2014 8:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: UnSharpMask is not reversible. it is with a non-destructive workflow. I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that. i absolutely do know the meaning, since it's all i use. it's you who doesn't understand what a non-destructive workflow means A non-destructive workflow means you can *undo* and then *redo*. That is not a reversible function. it is to the user, which is what matters. in other words, the user sharpens today and then tomorrow or next month or whenever, they can readjust it or remove it entirely. that means to the user, it's reversible. that's why a non-destructive workflow is so powerful. Non-destructive is wonderful. yes it is. it's one of the bests thing to happen to workflow. It especially impresses Chicken Little, Humpty Dumpty and nospam and probably other cartoon characters. resorting to insults means you're full of ****. a non-destructive workflow is *much* more flexible, powerful and productive than the old-fashioned way, which is why millions of photographers practice it, including ones more famous than you. But no matter how you try to squirm, no matter how you squeal, *unsharp mask is a nonreversible function*. the function is not used standalone so that doesn't matter. people use a non-destructive workflow so that any adjustment can be reversed and/or modified after the fact. you need to climb out of you narrow-minded thinking and look at what the rest of the world actually does and why they do it. For example, you can add sharpening with a high pass sharpen tool to an image, save it as a JPEG, send it to someone else, and they can use a blur tool to reverse the sharpen. not perfectly. you even said 'virtually reverses' in your description. that's another way of saying 'there is some loss.' I don't see the term "virtually reverses" in that sentence. look again: Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results. But the previous reference is in fact precise. The reason for saying "virtually reverses" so you admit you said it after all. is because if the sharpen and blur algorithms are not exactly the same and using precisely the correct parameters, the reversal isn't total. Which is to say that if it is done by inspection the result will be such that there is no visible difference. no visible difference is another way of saying there's a difference, but you just can't see it. there's no visible difference between a high quality jpeg and the original either. in fact, the difference is barely there even under close inspection. If it is actually measured, there will be an insignificant difference. so there is a difference, just as i said. I'm sorry that you have so much difficulty with precision use of language. i'm not the one with the difficulties. In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters. Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results. If the sharpening is done with UnsharpMask that cannot be done. USM is not reversible. in a destructive workflow that is true. in a non-destructive workflow, it is not true. Obviously you didn't understand what the term "reversible" means, and thought non-destructive is the same. It isn't. i didn't say it was the same. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing Then read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undo And note the distinction between reversible and a non-linear undo. non-destructive workflow is not non-linear undo. you are once again talking out your butt and refusing to acknowledge that you don't know something and that there are alternate ways of doing things. Sorry, I ain't biting at yuor bait. -- PeterN |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/15/2014 9:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:55:33 -0400, nospam wrote: In article 2014091516100048753-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are non-destructive. I fully expect you to tell me I am wrong. I will tell you that you are discussing a point which is not the point raised by Floyd. So too is nospam, but that is not surprising. Floyd was referring to a reversible function: run it forwards and you get sharpening; run it backwards and you get blur. Or the other way around if you wish. I got what Floyd was talking about when he was talking of high pass sharpening, and reversing it by applying the corresponding reverse parameter blur. However, he also stated above, "UnSharpMask is not reversible". My point addressed the fact that for some of us, that is not an entirely valid statement. what it boils down to is his definition of reversible is different than what the rest of the world uses. Oh! - Hullo rest of the world! You disappointed me. I thought you soulw simply say: "hello world." -- PeterN |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/16/2014 4:05 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
snip Floyd wasn't even talking about it! He was talking about different sharpening algorithms. You don't understand. In order to spout, the subject had to be changed. -- PeterN |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-16 15:21:10 +0000, PeterN said:
On 9/15/2014 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-15 17:32:07 +0000, nospam said: In article 2014091510153710516-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: UnSharpMask is not reversible. it is with a non-destructive workflow. I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that. I know your feelings regarding Photoshop, but using Adobe's *Smart Object* concept provides a different level of non-destructive workflow. Creating a new adjustment layer and converting it to a *Smart Object* gives one the ability to apply any filter, including USM and any of the other sharpening tools or filters to that *Smart Object*. If the particular adjustment results are not to one's liking, then double clicking on that filter in the *Smart Object* layer will reopen the filter dialog to allow changes to the filter parameters. In the case shown below I have applied USM to a *Smart Object* and I can return to it as often as I want to adjust the USM parameters, all non-destructively. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_900.jpg 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. These days with my LR+PS workflow many of my images make a round trip from LR to PS and back to LR have all the layers retained. If I need a JPEG I use the LR export dialog. It is so easy just to do a save as jpeg, diretly from PS. Then the image goes back to what it was before the "save as." Not quite. If you have been working on a 16-bit NEF using an ACR+PS workflow you are not going to be able to save that JPEG and maintain a non-destructive workflow. First you have to convert to 8-Bit, then you merge any adjustment layers and set any *Smart Objects* before making that “save as”. It does not go back to what you had before the “save as”. The only way you could retain what was there before the “save as” would be to go to “History” and “Create a new document from the current state” in a new tab. Merge the layers, convert to 8-bit, and save that as a JPEG. then you can close it and still have your working window open. That you can save as a layered PSD/TIF (do not merge) to retain the non-destructive qualities. The JPEG is a snapshot of the current state, and should just be considered a “version”. I don’t save JPEGS back to LR, only PSDs & TIFs. If I want/need a JPEG I just use the LR export dialog which handle resizing compression quality, and export file format. I have several LR export presets setting size and save location including specific Dropbox folders. That save many headaches. I can either go to the export dialog. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_903.jpg or directly to a preset from the pop-up menu after right clicking. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_902.jpg Yup! That is quite a different non-destructive process which quite a few here have yet to grasp even though they own LR. Guilty! Still learning it. Haben't really used it yet. Take the time to do that, you will be pleasantly surprised. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
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 doesnEUR(Tm)t really matter what you want the correct terms would be. I will take EURoereversibleEUR 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, EURoenon-destructiveEUR. That is a good move on your part. Start sticking with what Adobe calls it, and in the process use appropriate terms. As I've said, and clearly Adobe agrees with me, it is not a "reversible workflow". They provide the ability to revert an edit. That is also known as a "non-linear undo". It is not a method of "reversing" edits in the way these terms are normally used in the industry. Basically you can go back to the beginning and do it right the second time. But you can't reverse what you already did if it was Unsharp Mask. 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. I did not insert this BS about workflow into the discussion. It seems some people only know about one thing, and can't get past it even when it has no relevance to a discussion. 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 EURoeversion-1.jpgEUR. Once you are done with readjusting the layered PSD/TIF you can produce EURoeversion-2.jpgEUR, and still have the ability to return to the working PSD/TIF to produce a EURoeversion-3.jpgEUR. Once you send it to another person, your workflow has nothing to do with what they have. If what they have is oversharpened with a high pass sharpen tool, it is reversible. If it is over sharpened with an unsharp mask tool it cannot be reversed. 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. Get past your workflow. That is not the issue that was being discussed. 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. Untrue. Nobody doubts what you can do with it, the question is what significance is there to that? The answer in this case is "none". 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 isnEUR(Tm)t much point in going any further and we should just agree to disagree, you in your World, and me in mine. Wrong again. I don't mind pointing out that you were wrong then and wrong now. At least wrong about who said what. I haven't called you an ignoramus, and have no need to when you are willing to point out that you think that is what you should be called. You aren't wrong about what you are, only about who said it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson 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. the correct term and the one used by everyone except you is a non-destructible workflow. But a non-destructive workflow is not a "reversible workflow". Which doesn't make any difference anyway, as the topic is sharpening algorithms, not editor workflow design. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
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 |