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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: That is a good move on your part. Start sticking with what Adobe calls it, and in the process use appropriate terms. adobe didn't come up with the name. it's what everyone calls it, because it's non-destructive. But that doesn't make the processes employed reversible. who cares. what matters is the results, not micromanaging every step of the way. a non-destructive workflow is reversible. period. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article , Eric Stevens
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. what you and floyd fail to understand is none of that matters to anyone except you and floyd. 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. 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*. 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). |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
On 2014-09-17 04:23:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 01:34:16 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-16 08:05:37 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:35:31 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2014-09-16 02:59:40 +0000, Eric Stevens said: 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. :-( You might have notice that android addressed that comment to Floyd. So what? I was agreeing with him. Not quite. You redirected the intended comment to *nospam*, If you agreed with him your snide response would have poked at Floyd. 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. A non-destructive workflow makes that irreversible function very reversible indeed. You are fudging word meanings. In fact you seem to be demonstrating that you too don't know the difference between a reversible function and a reversible work flow. Not at all. If you reread what I wrote below, you will see that I have a firm grasp of each of the proposed concepts in this thread. 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 Once that working copy has had USM applied, the layers merged, and compressed into a JPEG (a destructive action) then Floyd is correct, the function can no longer be reversed. However, Floyd doesn't see the concept of the non-destructive workflow because he doesn't, or appears not to use one. He certainly isn't using what is available to those running either Lightroom or Photoshop CS6/CC/CC 2014, and ignores that some here have the ability to take advantage of a non-destructive, or "reversible" workflow because of the software tools installed on their computers. Floyd wasn't even talking about it! He was talking about different sharpening algorithms. Floyd specifically addressed high pass sharpening (HPS) in response to Alfred's query regarding USM. We ended up discussing HPS & USM and the qualities of both. I know what Floyd was talking about. Then why are you rabitting on about non-destructive work flows? 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. 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. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
In article 2014091622394424468-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote: There is much more to post processing than Floyd¹s way of doing things. Even though he denies the reality of the tools available to the Photoshop user. that's the problem. all he sees is his way and everything else is not possible. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: topics drift. deal with it. Learn the difference between a natural drift, and a deliberate drift to avoid a proper response to the issue. We all know yo never do that. correct. i don't. And hence you admit that you never provide proper responses, and instead merely clutter the group with nonsensical arguing. i said no such thing. you, however, will argue about even the slightest thing to avoid admitting you don't know something. Projection at its finest. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-17 04:08:19 +0000, Eric Stevens said: On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:53:15 -0700, 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. 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. The reverse process performed on a lossy, compressed JPEG is not going to reverse the HPF to return to the original state. That was lost once the save was executed. So reversing apples isn't the same as reversing oranges? Astoundingly astute observation. Or it would be if you understood what you said... The sharpening can be reversed. The lossy compression cannot, as it is much like UnsharpMask in being a non-reversible process. See the connection? This is not the same as just cancelling the operation as you do when you delete it from a sidecar file. We have an apples & oranges issue here I have been speaking of the two varieties of non-destructive workflow available to PS and LR users, they are not the same. What you have said above is sort of correct for Lightroom, but not for Photoshop where there are no sidecar, or catalog files. you should learn the difference. And none of that has significance for the OP's questions about sharpening. On the other hand, the distinctions between USM and HPS are significant. You could always try to understand what he (and I) are really saying. It's not what you seem to think it is. What you claim isnâEUR(Tm)t actually 100% possible once you are trying to reverse changes to a JPEG. It might look close, but an exact reversal, never. However, I can make that exact reversal using the tools I (& you) have available in Photoshop. You are still insisting on mixing apples with oranges, which has exactly zero significance to the topic at hand. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: That is a good move on your part. Start sticking with what Adobe calls it, and in the process use appropriate terms. adobe didn't come up with the name. it's what everyone calls it, because it's non-destructive. But that doesn't make the processes employed reversible. who cares. The OP and everyone who is interested in the topic at hand. what matters is the results, not micromanaging every step of the way. a non-destructive workflow is reversible. period. That's why nobody calls it a reversible workflow except you? They don't call it that because it isn't that. They call it this because this is what it is, and this isn't that. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
nospam wrote:
In article 2014091622394424468-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote: There is much more to post processing than Floyd¹s way of doing things. Even though he denies the reality of the tools available to the Photoshop user. that's the problem. all he sees is his way and everything else is not possible. More projection, by both of you. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses and sharpening
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. -- 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 |