A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lenses and sharpening



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old September 17th 14, 10:42 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Lenses and sharpening

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:42:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-17 07:25:45 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-17 04:23:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
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


You have long since ceased anything not silly. But
using your own definitions of very technical terms just
leads to farther down the same path. Your definition is
trivial, and not valid in a technical discussion.

Reversiblility is not equivalent to revertability.

And undo function (linear or not) reverts. That is it
goes back to a previous state.

A "reversible function" incrementally moves forward,
or backward, in granular steps that are necessarily
small compared to the potential range.

An excellent definition for the difference between a
reversible function and a non-reversible function is
that in an isolated system entropy change will be
greater than 0 with a non-reversible process, and will
be 0 with a reversible process.

That means there is one original state, and one current
state that derives from a specific process that cannot
produce any other state; and if 1) the process is
reversible there is only one possible state if the
process moves backwards, while 2) there are multiple
different possible states if an irrevsible process moves
backwards.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Photo%20Jan%2005%2C%2012%2038%2052.jpg


I'm disappointed to hear that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #112  
Old September 17th 14, 10:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Lenses and sharpening

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.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #113  
Old September 17th 14, 10:47 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Eric Stevens:
The water is muddied by the several applications which make use
of a sidecar file of some kind to preserve a list of edits which
are only executed when the image file is exported from the
editing environment. Modifying a sidecar file by deleting an
editing process from it does not make that process reversible.
It merely makes that process asthough it never was.


Savageduck:
If you make the adjustments in Photoshop with a non-destructive
workflow there is no use of sidecar files or catalog entries as in
Lightroom.


True, but this has nothing to do with whether a process is
reversible or not.


Of course it does. Non-destructive adjustments means they are reversible.

A tip for the future - whenever Floyd says anything, it's a safe bet to
assume the exact opposite is true.

--
Sandman[.net]
  #114  
Old September 17th 14, 10:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Savageduck:
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.


Yes, it does.

All it does is let you have another go at a process using different
settings.


I.e. you reverse the effect of any given setting.

Eric Stevens:
Then why are you rabitting on about non-destructive work flows?


Savageduck:
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.


That's because Floyd has no idea what a reversible process is.

Savageduck:
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.


Best joke of the month.





--
Sandman[.net]
  #115  
Old September 17th 14, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

The topic was sharpening, and the differences in ways to
do that. Abobe's programs are not even close to the
only way to sharpen.


nobody said they were. however, they're by far the most popular.

In fact *most* users that actually
get into the more sophisticated aspects of sharpening
cease using anything that Abobe provides for that
purpose, and shift to better tools.


nonsense.

they might in very specialized cases, certainly not for most purposes.

Generic atributes of sharpen tools can and should be
discussed absent references to specific implementations.
When specific attributes are discussed it doesn't make a
great deal of sense to look at low end products designed
to appeal to the lowest common denominator, as might
well be discussed in your "Abobe Tools for Dummies"
manual.


the fact that you think photoshop is a low end product shows how full
of **** you are.

photoshop is one of the most sophisticated image editors around, which
is why the majority of graphics professionals and photographers use it.

the gimp wishes it could be half as good. the gimp is about ten years
behind photoshop, both in features and efficiency.
  #116  
Old September 17th 14, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you make the adjustments in Photoshop with a non-destructive
workflow there is no use of sidecar files or catalog entries as in
Lightroom.


True, but this has nothing to do with whether a process is reversible
or not.


if it can be reversed, then it's reversible.

since you finally agree that adjustments made in photoshop can be
reversed, then it's reversible.
  #117  
Old September 17th 14, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

I was saying that I doubt nospam could get his mind around the thought
that "A reversible function and ditto workflow ain't the same thing".
The evidence is that he (and you) can't.


of course i can.


After how many exchanges of your insipid messages now,
if you haven't, you probably simply can't.


i can, and i also understand the difference between a function and a
workflow, which you clearly do not.

what you and floyd fail to understand is none of that matters to anyone
except you and floyd.


"Anyone" being only you then. Everyone who has an
interest in the OP's questions about sharpening is very
interested in the fact that USM is non-reversible.


the original question was about what's the best way to sharpen an
image, not whether it's reversible.

once again, with a non-destructive workflow, *everything* is reversible
and/or adjustable after the fact, regardless of the mathematical
transform involved.

users are interested in getting the best results with the least amount
of hassle. they don't want math tutorials or whether a function has an
inverse.


Yes, some users want cookie cutter solutions and have no
ability to make use of, or understand, the underlying
technical details. Unfortunately for you and other like
that, becoming expert at most very technical persuits
such as photography requires getting past the cookie
cutter.

Memorizing all the details in a "Photoshop for Dummies"
book won't make you a photographer, and won't help the
rest of those who aspire to such who have to read this
unending diatribe you produce in this newsgroup.


there you go with your condescending bull****.

users do not want to study the math behind image processing.

they want results with minimal hassle.

having capable tools that simplify things empowers people to create
results they could not have otherwise done before, which is a very,
very good thing.

it's assholes like you that want to keep things complicated just so
they can brag about how they can do things that other people can't.

fortunately, people much smarter than you are have put their knowledge
into various apps so that one does not need an advanced degree in image
processing just to be able take a photo and post-process it into a work
of art.

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*.


No, it's just a very narrow view that includes only the
simplistic workflow that you've been able to achieve for
producing cookies.

Given real world problems, you offer Chocolate Chip
cookies in two varieties: with and without the chips.


statements like that show just how little you know.

there is nothing simplistic or narrow about a non-destructive workflow.

in fact, a non-destructive workflow is often a bit confusing to many
people when they first see it, but once they use it, they see how
useful it is and wonder why they didn't make the change sooner.

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).


And you can indeed do that with the non-linear undo
facility at your disposal. That is a pretty narrow case
though, and it is not what "reversible" is all about.


it is not a non-linear undo and there's absolutely nothing narrow about
what i described.

as usual, you're talking out your ass, trying to tell people who use a
non-destructive workflow what it is they're doing and not doing and
making a huge fool of yourself in the process.

For example, the copy of that image you sent to others,
perhaps at a large pixel dimension, cannot be resampled
to a lower pixel dimension for printing in a brochure at
3x3 inches because the USM, which was excessive to start
with, cannot be reversed. If you had used another form
of sharpen for better effect, the copy would have been
useable. That is not an insignificant point. They end
of rejecting your image, and buy one from a photographer.


statements like that is clear proof you haven't any clue about what
you're talking about.
  #118  
Old September 17th 14, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...C%2012%2038%20

52.jpg


I'm sure you do, probably far more often that a mere 20
times a day, considering how often you respond with
shallow comments on topics that you can't understand.
Why not just read and try to learn?


why don't you?

not only have you not tried a non-destructive workflow, but you have
said some crazy **** about it that is beyond wrong.

instead of telling people that it's dumbed down for idiots or that what
they're doing is not possible (neither of which is true), how about you
stfu and try to learn something about it, before you say further stupid
things.
  #119  
Old September 17th 14, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
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


You have long since ceased anything not silly. But
using your own definitions of very technical terms just
leads to farther down the same path. Your definition is
trivial, and not valid in a technical discussion.

Reversiblility is not equivalent to revertability.

And undo function (linear or not) reverts. That is it
goes back to a previous state.

A "reversible function" incrementally moves forward,
or backward, in granular steps that are necessarily
small compared to the potential range.

An excellent definition for the difference between a
reversible function and a non-reversible function is
that in an isolated system entropy change will be
greater than 0 with a non-reversible process, and will
be 0 with a reversible process.

That means there is one original state, and one current
state that derives from a specific process that cannot
produce any other state; and if 1) the process is
reversible there is only one possible state if the
process moves backwards, while 2) there are multiple
different possible states if an irrevsible process moves
backwards.


further proof you have *no* understanding whatsoever about a
non-destructive workflow.

there is no undoing or reverting in a non-destructive workflow. that's
not how it works at all.

millions of people reverse and/or adjust things they did every single
day, using software you've never used, so when you tell them that they
can't do what they are doing, you look rather foolish.
  #120  
Old September 17th 14, 11:13 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


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.


nonsense, of course i can, and have.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:35 PM
Am I over-sharpening? Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address Digital Photography 12 February 9th 06 07:58 AM
RAW sharpening embee Digital Photography 11 December 24th 04 04:43 PM
D70 on-camera sharpening vs. Photoshop sharpening john Digital Photography 7 July 23rd 04 10:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.