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.

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).

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)