Lenses and sharpening

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

So? The fact still remains, regardless of personal
opinion about Adobe, Lightroom, & Photoshop, those using
that software have the ability to maintain a fully
non-destructive, and reversible workflow, that includes
reversing the effects of any filter including USM.

It's not a "reversible" workflow. The correct terms
would be either a non-linear undo, or simply that it
can be reverted.

the correct term and the one used by everyone except you is a
non-destructible workflow.

âEUR¦and if you are going to start that reverse
mathematical operation from a compressed, & lossy JPEG,
good luck getting back to where you started.

Your workflow, even if non-destructive, will be totally
unable to deal with reverting any previous editing
with the exception of processes, such as sharpen (not
USM), that are reversible.

wrong.

in a non-destructible workflow, *everything* can be altered, adjusted
or removed at any time, including unsharp mask, cropping and
retouching.

you've clearly never used such a workflow and are talking out your butt.

On 9/15/2014 1:32 PM, nospam wrote:
In article 2014091510153710516-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

UnSharpMask is not reversible.

it is with a non-destructive workflow.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that.

I know your feelings regarding Photoshop, but using Adobe's *Smart
Object* concept provides a different level of non-destructive workflow.
Creating a new adjustment layer and converting it to a *Smart Object*
gives one the ability to apply any filter, including USM and any of the
other sharpening tools or filters to that *Smart Object*.
If the particular adjustment results are not to one's liking, then
double clicking on that filter in the *Smart Object* layer will reopen
the filter dialog to allow changes to the filter parameters.
In the case shown below I have applied USM to a *Smart Object* and I
can return to it as often as I want to adjust the USM parameters, all
non-destructively.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_900.jpg

All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are
non-destructive.

true, but i was thinking of lightroom where no additional steps are
required because everything is non-destructive.

with photoshop, the user has to take additional steps to be
non-destructive.

The additional step is one click to open all objects in PS as a smart
object.

BTW most of us here do not have the ability to know what you were
thinking of, unless you positively state what you were thinking of.


I fully expect you to tell me I am wrong.

of course.



--
PeterN

On 9/15/2014 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-15 17:32:07 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014091510153710516-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

UnSharpMask is not reversible.

it is with a non-destructive workflow.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that.

I know your feelings regarding Photoshop, but using Adobe's *Smart
Object* concept provides a different level of non-destructive workflow.
Creating a new adjustment layer and converting it to a *Smart Object*
gives one the ability to apply any filter, including USM and any of the
other sharpening tools or filters to that *Smart Object*.
If the particular adjustment results are not to one's liking, then
double clicking on that filter in the *Smart Object* layer will reopen
the filter dialog to allow changes to the filter parameters.
In the case shown below I have applied USM to a *Smart Object* and I
can return to it as often as I want to adjust the USM parameters, all
non-destructively.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_900.jpg

All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are
non-destructive.

true, but i was thinking of lightroom where no additional steps are
required because everything is non-destructive.

These days with my LR+PS workflow many of my images make a round trip
from LR to PS and back to LR have all the layers retained. If I need a
JPEG I use the LR export dialog.

It is so easy just to do a save as jpeg, diretly from PS.
Then the image goes back to what it was before the "save as."


Yup! That is quite a different non-destructive process which quite a few
here have yet to grasp even though they own LR.


Guilty!
Still learning it. Haben't really used it yet.


--
PeterN

On 9/15/2014 4:33 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

UnSharpMask is not reversible.

it is with a non-destructive workflow.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that.

i absolutely do know the meaning, since it's all i use.

it's you who doesn't understand what a non-destructive workflow means

A non-destructive workflow means you can *undo* and then *redo*.

That is not a reversible function.

it is to the user, which is what matters.

in other words, the user sharpens today and then tomorrow or next month
or whenever, they can readjust it or remove it entirely. that means to
the user, it's reversible.

that's why a non-destructive workflow is so powerful.

Non-destructive is wonderful. It especially impresses
Chicken Little, Humpty Dumpty and nospam and probably
other cartoon characters.

But no matter how you try to squirm, no matter how you
squeal, *unsharp mask is a nonreversible function*.

For example, you can add sharpening with a high pass
sharpen tool to an image, save it as a JPEG, send it to
someone else, and they can use a blur tool to reverse
the sharpen.

not perfectly. you even said 'virtually reverses' in your description.

that's another way of saying 'there is some loss.'

I don't see the term "virtually reverses" in that sentence.

But the previous reference is in fact precise. The
reason for saying "virtually reverses" is because if the
sharpen and blur algorithms are not exactly the same and
using precisely the correct parameters, the reversal
isn't total. Which is to say that if it is done by
inspection the result will be such that there is no
visible difference.

If it is actually measured, there will be an
insignificant difference.

I'm sorry that you have so much difficulty with
precision use of language.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of
blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters.
Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.

If the sharpening is done with UnsharpMask that cannot
be done. USM is not reversible.

in a destructive workflow that is true.

in a non-destructive workflow, it is not true.

Obviously you didn't understand what the term
"reversible" means, and thought non-destructive is the
same. It isn't.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing

Then read this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undo

And note the distinction between reversible and a
non-linear undo.


One problem is that you and nospam are talking bout two different
things. And using the same word in two different ocntexts.
Today if I needed to send an image for review and collaberative work, I
would use one of the collaberative feature in CC.

Another problem he is that nospam has all this argumentative theory, but
has yet to prove that he even makes photographs.





--
PeterN

On 9/15/2014 8:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

UnSharpMask is not reversible.

it is with a non-destructive workflow.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that.

i absolutely do know the meaning, since it's all i use.

it's you who doesn't understand what a non-destructive workflow means

A non-destructive workflow means you can *undo* and then *redo*.

That is not a reversible function.

it is to the user, which is what matters.

in other words, the user sharpens today and then tomorrow or next month
or whenever, they can readjust it or remove it entirely. that means to
the user, it's reversible.

that's why a non-destructive workflow is so powerful.

Non-destructive is wonderful.

yes it is. it's one of the bests thing to happen to workflow.

It especially impresses
Chicken Little, Humpty Dumpty and nospam and probably
other cartoon characters.

resorting to insults means you're full of ****.

a non-destructive workflow is *much* more flexible, powerful and
productive than the old-fashioned way, which is why millions of
photographers practice it, including ones more famous than you.

But no matter how you try to squirm, no matter how you
squeal, *unsharp mask is a nonreversible function*.

the function is not used standalone so that doesn't matter.

people use a non-destructive workflow so that any adjustment can be
reversed and/or modified after the fact.

you need to climb out of you narrow-minded thinking and look at what
the rest of the world actually does and why they do it.

For example, you can add sharpening with a high pass
sharpen tool to an image, save it as a JPEG, send it to
someone else, and they can use a blur tool to reverse
the sharpen.

not perfectly. you even said 'virtually reverses' in your description.

that's another way of saying 'there is some loss.'

I don't see the term "virtually reverses" in that sentence.

look again:
Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.


But the previous reference is in fact precise. The
reason for saying "virtually reverses"

so you admit you said it after all.

is because if the
sharpen and blur algorithms are not exactly the same and
using precisely the correct parameters, the reversal
isn't total. Which is to say that if it is done by
inspection the result will be such that there is no
visible difference.

no visible difference is another way of saying there's a difference,
but you just can't see it.

there's no visible difference between a high quality jpeg and the
original either. in fact, the difference is barely there even under
close inspection.

If it is actually measured, there will be an
insignificant difference.

so there is a difference, just as i said.

I'm sorry that you have so much difficulty with
precision use of language.

i'm not the one with the difficulties.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:
Not the case. It is the high pass sharpen tool that is the inverse of
blur. They can use the exact same algorithm with different parameters.
Using one and then the other virtually reverses the results.

If the sharpening is done with UnsharpMask that cannot
be done. USM is not reversible.

in a destructive workflow that is true.

in a non-destructive workflow, it is not true.

Obviously you didn't understand what the term
"reversible" means, and thought non-destructive is the
same. It isn't.

i didn't say it was the same.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversible_computing

Then read this,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undo

And note the distinction between reversible and a
non-linear undo.

non-destructive workflow is not non-linear undo.

you are once again talking out your butt and refusing to acknowledge
that you don't know something and that there are alternate ways of
doing things.


Sorry, I ain't biting at yuor bait.

--
PeterN

On 9/15/2014 9:51 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 20:55:33 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article 2014091516100048753-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck 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.

I got what Floyd was talking about when he was talking of high pass
sharpening, and reversing it by applying the corresponding reverse
parameter blur. However, he also stated above, "UnSharpMask is not
reversible". My point addressed the fact that for some of us, that is
not an entirely valid statement.

what it boils down to is his definition of reversible is different than
what the rest of the world uses.

Oh! - Hullo rest of the world!


You disappointed me. I thought you soulw simply say: "hello world."



--
PeterN

On 9/16/2014 4:05 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip


Floyd wasn't even talking about it! He was talking about different
sharpening algorithms.


You don't understand. In order to spout, the subject had to be changed.

--
PeterN

On 2014-09-16 15:21:10 +0000, PeterN said:

On 9/15/2014 1:56 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-15 17:32:07 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2014091510153710516-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

UnSharpMask is not reversible.

it is with a non-destructive workflow.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the meaning of that.

I know your feelings regarding Photoshop, but using Adobe's *Smart
Object* concept provides a different level of non-destructive workflow.
Creating a new adjustment layer and converting it to a *Smart Object*
gives one the ability to apply any filter, including USM and any of the
other sharpening tools or filters to that *Smart Object*.
If the particular adjustment results are not to one's liking, then
double clicking on that filter in the *Smart Object* layer will reopen
the filter dialog to allow changes to the filter parameters.
In the case shown below I have applied USM to a *Smart Object* and I
can return to it as often as I want to adjust the USM parameters, all
non-destructively.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_900.jpg

All adjustments made to *Smart Objects*, in Photoshop terms, are
non-destructive.

true, but i was thinking of lightroom where no additional steps are
required because everything is non-destructive.

These days with my LR+PS workflow many of my images make a round trip
from LR to PS and back to LR have all the layers retained. If I need a
JPEG I use the LR export dialog.

It is so easy just to do a save as jpeg, diretly from PS.
Then the image goes back to what it was before the "save as."

Not quite.
If you have been working on a 16-bit NEF using an ACR+PS workflow you
are not going to be able to save that JPEG and maintain a
non-destructive workflow. First you have to convert to 8-Bit, then you
merge any adjustment layers and set any *Smart Objects* before making
that “save as�. It does not go back to what you had before the “save
as�. The only way you could retain what was there before the “save as�
would be to go to “History� and “Create a new document from the current
state� in a new tab. Merge the layers, convert to 8-bit, and save that
as a JPEG. then you can close it and still have your working window
open. That you can save as a layered PSD/TIF (do not merge) to retain
the non-destructive qualities. The JPEG is a snapshot of the current
state, and should just be considered a “version�.

I don’t save JPEGS back to LR, only PSDs & TIFs. If I want/need a JPEG
I just use the LR export dialog which handle resizing compression
quality, and export file format. I have several LR export presets
setting size and save location including specific Dropbox folders. That
save many headaches. I can either go to the export dialog.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_903.jpg
or directly to a preset from the pop-up menu after right clicking.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_902.jpg

Yup! That is quite a different non-destructive process which quite a few
here have yet to grasp even though they own LR.


Guilty!
Still learning it. Haben't really used it yet.

Take the time to do that, you will be pleasantly surprised.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-16 10:36:29 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
So? The fact still remains, regardless of personal
opinion about Adobe, Lightroom, & Photoshop, those using
that software have the ability to maintain a fully
non-destructive, and reversible workflow, that includes
reversing the effects of any filter including USM.
It's not a "reversible" workflow. The correct terms
would be either a non-linear undo, or simply that it
can be reverted.

I guess you are in complete denial with regard to the
capabilities of current versions of Lightroom &
Photoshop, so it doesnâEUR(Tm)t really matter what you want
the correct terms would be. I will take âEURoereversibleâEUR�
out of my obviously too hyperbolic for you, description
of the capabilities of those Adobe products, and just
continue to use the word Adobe uses,
âEURoenon-destructiveâEUR�.

That is a good move on your part. Start sticking with
what Adobe calls it, and in the process use appropriate
terms.

As I've said, and clearly Adobe agrees with me, it is
not a "reversible workflow". They provide the ability to
revert an edit. That is also known as a "non-linear
undo". It is not a method of "reversing" edits in the
way these terms are normally used in the industry.

Basically you can go back to the beginning and do it
right the second time. But you can't reverse what
you already did if it was Unsharp Mask.

âEUR¦and if you are going to start that reverse
mathematical operation from a compressed, & lossy JPEG,
good luck getting back to where you started.
Your workflow, even if non-destructive, will be totally
unable to deal with reverting any previous editing
with the exception of processes, such as sharpen (not
USM), that are reversible.

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.

I did not insert this BS about workflow into the
discussion. It seems some people only know about one
thing, and can't get past it even when it has no
relevance to a discussion.

As I have said in some other responses of mine, the JPEG
which might be produced is just a compressed, lossy
snapshot of the actual, non-destructively adjusted, and
uncompressed layered PSD, or TIF. It is best to consider
it a version, and there is no point in even trying to
rework it. Call it âEURoeversion-1.jpgâEUR�. Once you are
done with readjusting the layered PSD/TIF you can
produce âEURoeversion-2.jpgâEUR�, and still have the ability
to return to the working PSD/TIF to produce a
âEURoeversion-3.jpgâEUR�.

Once you send it to another person, your workflow has
nothing to do with what they have. If what they have is
oversharpened with a high pass sharpen tool, it is
reversible. If it is over sharpened with an unsharp
mask tool it cannot be reversed.

The product of a non-destructive workflow is not a JPEG,
and there is little point in doing any reversion work in
those JPEGs other than some polishing tweaks.

Get past your workflow. That is not the issue that was
being discussed.

Obviously there is nothing I can say or demonstrate to
convince you that I am able to do what I say I can with
LR &/or PS.

Untrue. Nobody doubts what you can do with it, the
question is what significance is there to that? The
answer in this case is "none".

You are stuck in a World void of Adobe where
you spin your knowledge of fundamental technical minutia
into a shield of denial. I will not be, nor do I strive
to be the the technical wizard you obviously are, but
this is one of those times where you have not moved with
the times.

As I said when I first came into this thread, I fully
expected you to tell me I was wrong and an ignoramus
(which I might well be regarding some stuff), and you
met that expectation, and there isnâEUR(Tm)t much point in
going any further and we should just agree to disagree,
you in your World, and me in mine.

Wrong again. I don't mind pointing out that you were
wrong then and wrong now. At least wrong about who said
what. I haven't called you an ignoramus, and have no
need to when you are willing to point out that you think
that is what you should be called. You aren't wrong
about what you are, only about who said it.

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

nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

So? The fact still remains, regardless of personal
opinion about Adobe, Lightroom, & Photoshop, those using
that software have the ability to maintain a fully
non-destructive, and reversible workflow, that includes
reversing the effects of any filter including USM.

It's not a "reversible" workflow. The correct terms
would be either a non-linear undo, or simply that it
can be reverted.

the correct term and the one used by everyone except you is a
non-destructible workflow.

But a non-destructive workflow is not a "reversible
workflow".

Which doesn't make any difference anyway, as the topic
is sharpening algorithms, not editor workflow design.

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