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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |