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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Fine, fine. If you wear a reversible jacket do call it, too, a non-destructive work flow? Of course not. There are several subtly different meanings to the word 'reversible' and you seem to have only learned one of them. floyd would be the one who has only learned one of them. everything in a non-destructive workflow is reversible. that's the whole *point* and why it's so useful. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens 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. there are indeed such functions, but that doesn't matter to users. they want to edit photos, not learn mathematical theory. when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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. there are indeed such functions, but that doesn't matter to users. they want to edit photos, not learn mathematical theory. when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function. i never said the *function* was. i said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, and it is, as are all adjustments. that's the main point of a non-destructive workflow, something you refuse to acknowledge. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:08:25 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Fine, fine. If you wear a reversible jacket do call it, too, a non-destructive work flow? Of course not. There are several subtly different meanings to the word 'reversible' and you seem to have only learned one of them. floyd would be the one who has only learned one of them. everything in a non-destructive workflow is reversible. that's the whole *point* and why it's so useful. It's your point, but it wasn't Floyds and it's not what I want to discuss. Why don't you shut up? You may learn something. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:12:53 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson 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. there are indeed such functions, but that doesn't matter to users. they want to edit photos, not learn mathematical theory. when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function. i never said the *function* was. i said usm is reversible in a non-destructive workflow, and it is, as are all adjustments. Yes, you changed the subject, and now you are trying to blame Floyd for wanting to go on talking about his original subject. that's the main point of a non-destructive workflow, something you refuse to acknowledge. He doesn't acknowledge it because that's not what he was (trying) to talk about. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 04:36:08 +0200, android wrote:
In article , (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Eric Stevens 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. there are indeed such functions, but that doesn't matter to users. they want to edit photos, not learn mathematical theory. when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Squirm all you like, but USM is well known to be a non-reversible function. Oki... A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing. ;-) I doubt if nospam can get his mind around that thought. :-( -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: when a user can modify an image and change it later, it's reversible and that's why it's called a non-destructive workflow. Fine, fine. If you wear a reversible jacket do call it, too, a non-destructive work flow? Of course not. There are several subtly different meanings to the word 'reversible' and you seem to have only learned one of them. floyd would be the one who has only learned one of them. everything in a non-destructive workflow is reversible. that's the whole *point* and why it's so useful. It's your point, but it wasn't Floyds and it's not what I want to discuss. Why don't you shut up? You may learn something. tell that to floyd. he knows nothing about non-destructive workflows or how they work, going so far to say that they are for cartoon characters. if anyone needs to learn something, it's him. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 9/15/14 PDT, 7:07 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck wrote: 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. That is in fact a valid statement. The USM function is not reversible. That isn't a opinion, it's a fact. For one definition of the word! |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
|
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 |