Lenses and sharpening

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe
who
understand all this.

i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

I'm sure they do.

so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.

I've never denied it.

yes you have.

It's just that it's not fully reversible in the
strict sense that Floyd used it.

it is, but in a different way.

two different uses of the term.

the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings
because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his
ass.

There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully
reversible' as used in physics.

this isn't about physics.

it's about a non-destructive workflow.

In using those words in that way he
was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there
is no substitute.

however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:11 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I think I would laugh in the same circumstances.

why?

the camera in the 5s is very good, and *far* more portable than a nikon
d3 or d4 with multiple lenses.

If I have to explain a joke to you it ceases to be funny.

what makes you think he was joking?

i'm quite sure his iphone 5s really is the camera he has been using
lately.

Why do you think Floyd was laughing?

because he's a condescending elitist asshole who will never admit that
a camera in a phone can give his bulky kit a run for its money?

just a guess.

Because he was expecting something quite different and found he was
caught by surprise when he realised what his friend was talking about.

what's funny about that?

Gawdelpus!

anyone who laughs at a smartphone camera is an idiot.

no it won't be the best choice in all situations but it can be in quite
a few.

No, that's only your best guess.

nope.
it's my opinion and that of many others who actually use one.


http://austinmann.com/trek/iphone-5s-review-patagonia
This iPhone 5S beats out the 5 in every camera test and in many ways
I prefer it to my DSLR. *Sure it has its pros & consŠ but for the
first time ever, I didn't bring my Canon 1DX and I didn't regret it
one bit. That's saying a lot.*
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:40:38 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-21 02:33:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 19:01:29 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-21 01:34:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 20:38:30 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who
understand all this.

i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

I'm sure they do.

so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.

I've never denied it. It's just that it's not fully reversible in the
strict sense that Floyd used it.

Floyd is using Lightroom & Photoshop? Amazing!!!
Hell, or is it Barrow (that is more likely) has frozen over.

You really do have a problem looking directly at what I have been
saying.

What I am saying is, this tread has become very silly with all sorts of
folks disagreeing, and talking at cross purposes.

Right from the point when nospam started contradicting Floyd.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:14 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe
who
understand all this.

i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

I'm sure they do.

so you finally agree it's reversible. amazing.

I've never denied it.

yes you have.

It's just that it's not fully reversible in the
strict sense that Floyd used it.

it is, but in a different way.

two different uses of the term.

the problem is that he won't acknowledge there can be other meanings
because he's never used the software in question and is talking out his
ass.

There is no other meaning which can be applied to the term 'fully
reversible' as used in physics.

this isn't about physics.

It's an aspect of physics when you try answering Albert Molon's very
first question "Has somebody analysed this (i.e. how to best sharpen
an image, what unsharpness can be eliminated in post-processing)?"

Floyd gave a perfectly accurate and relevant answer to that question
and you have been ****ing up the thread ever since.

I bet that even now you will say something irrelevant about a
non-destructive work flow. How the hell do you think that's going to
fix a lens problem?

Idiot.

it's about a non-destructive workflow.

In using those words in that way he
was expressing a particular rigorously defined meaning for which there
is no substitute.

however, there are alternate meanings and just as valid.

And utterly irrelevant.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:13 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html
Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding".

Going into video encoding are you?
Whatever happened to the affection for JPEGs?

How do you think Adobe optimises the alignment of shots when
constructing a panorama from a collection of images?

what does that have to do with a non-destructive workflow?

Nothing, but it has a lot to do with entropy and reversible processes
in image processing. But you couldn't know that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"Maximum entropy method in image processing".

Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who
understand all this.

i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a non-destructive
workflow.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html
Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding".

that has absolutely nothing to do with a non-destructive workflow and
whether something is reversible.

Which is why your contributions to this thread have been meaningless
noise.

you have that backwards.

anything other than a non-destructive workflow is noise.

that includes thermodynamics, physics, entropy, flat earth and whatever
else was mentioned.

Ignoramus!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-09-21 05:13:46 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 22:58:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"Maximum entropy method in image processing".

Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing, at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who
understand all this.

i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a non-destructive
workflow.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

And here is an Adobe guy who knows about entropy.
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/adobe-me..._encoding.html
Scroll down to find the heading "Entropy Encoding".

that has absolutely nothing to do with a non-destructive workflow and
whether something is reversible.

Which is why your contributions to this thread have been meaningless
noise.

you have that backwards.

anything other than a non-destructive workflow is noise.

that includes thermodynamics, physics, entropy, flat earth and whatever
else was mentioned.

Ignoramus!

I knew that word was going to show up sooner or later. ;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-20 22:55:48 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2014 02:19:41 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-20 05:01:11 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 19 Sep 2014 23:51:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:
Le Snip

But you have turned your face
away from what he was trying to say ...
nope.
if there's anyone who has turned their faces it's you
and floyd.
Sigh ...
The one thing which is quite obvious is Floyd's
arrogant
denigration of anybody who disagrees with him,
interprets what he says literally, or fails to discern
what it is he actually means from his arcane
diatribes. He dismisses software and technics he does &
won't use as some sort of lesser species.
No wonder he has to live where he does, and I am sure
that he is the most respected and sought out technical
blabber mouth in Barrow.
There are other folks who question Floyd's
credentials
and some of the stuff he says.
This was a discussion which when it came up in
rec.photo.digital fell apart quite quickly when Floyd
told Tony Cooper he was wrong regarding "Street
Photography". It seems he also tried to fly his concept
in dpreview forums.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50358552
Here is the criticism:
"Here's an interesting bit of Street Photography. No
people, no pavement, no city. An empty truck parked on
an unmaintained gravel "road". The nearest concrete
sidewalk is 500 miles south. A paradise to some, while
others say it is desolation.
http://apaflo.com/street/d8a_2303.s.jpg
I know of no street photographer who would not call
this statement
delusional."
Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_photography
"Street photography is photography that features the human condition
within public places and does not necessitate the presence of a
street or even the urban environment. The subject of the photograph
might be absent of people and can be an object or environment where
the image projects a decidedly human character in facsimile or
aesthetic."
By that definition, Floyd is correct in calling that
street
photography.
--- snip ---

...and yet there are those, many of whom engage in
street photography, who disagree with Floyd. How dare
they!

BTW: I think it made a nice surreal image.

Not many who understand the basis for Street Photography
would disagree with me on that.

Instead it's people who want to use their own special
definition of Street, usually as a mechanical means of
removing vast amounts of what they see as "competition"
from consideration of where the stand. That is very
common with the general population of photographers on
the Internet, whether it is Street or any other genre.
We see it in Macro Photography, we see it in Portrait
Photography, we see it in Landscape Photography, and on
and on.

The point is that authoritative definitions, not
personal ones, make it a Street shot. It was selected
specifically because it is an good example of the
difference.

You should not miss the point that saying there are
those who disagree means exactly nothing. The vast
majority of recognized experts on that topic would not
disagree, and that is what means something.

It's an example that _you_ can learn from, both about
reasonable logic and about Street Photography.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck wrote:
BTW: That was a quotation of Floyd's words above, not
Frank Dodd's. Here is some of what he said which
disagreed with that Alaskan proposition.

"I know of no street photographer who would not call this statement delusional.
Your saying Ansel Adams moonrise photo is street photography
I know of no street photographer who would not also call
this statement delusional.
Your uncalled-for personal attacks on Chris and on me.
Your very strange inability to hear what anyone else is
saying to you in any forum.
Being called out as the pathological liar of your hometown, Barrow, Alaska
Others can do as they wish, but I've put you on my ignore list.
Good bye"

The first thing to note is that citing something like the webpage
of David Eves, as is done above, is a clear indication that the
writer is projecting his own delusion. Same with what you did!

You aren't citing an authority in this case either. Just the
opposite.

You're not interested in truth or learning.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-20 23:39:49 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Nothing in your reply makes image processing be the same as
thermodynamics, Eric. You're blathering about things you know
nothing about.
See http://tinyurl.com/mbrhs3e
You failed again. Are you jusyt wildly googling and
hoping that something
will support your incorrect claims? Seems that way.
"Maximum entropy method in image processing".
Naah. That's got nothing to do with image processing,
at least not in
your limited range of knowledge. But I bet there are guys at Adobe who
understand all this.
i bet there are guys (and gals) at adobe who
understand that a
non-destructive workflow is reversible and laugh at all the bull****
being spewed here.

Here is a gal at Adobe who understands the concept of a
non-destructive workflow.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

Not too great a choice on your part. Her job is to try
explaining products to idiots who can't comprehend
either the theory or the technology. It defines you.

But she supports what Eric is saying, not what you
claim. Hmmmm...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)