Lenses and sharpening

PeterN wrote:

One problem is that you and nospam are talking bout two
different things. And using the same word in two
different ocntexts.

Because nospam is off topic. I'm not using these words
in the wrong context, he is.

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.

That's true, but also off topic and of no significance
at all.

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

PeterN wrote:
On 9/15/2014 8:55 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

But nospam does a good job with projecting. He's described himself
several times, with great accuracy, in trying to denounce others.

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

On 2014-09-16 16:36:02 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

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.

Actually I can, provided I use my 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.

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.

That is a different issue. I don't give a damn what some other person
wants to to with a JPEG. If they truly want to make changes or
collaborate I will send them the NEF, or a layered PSD/TIF via the
Creative Cloud system, or if they are a PS CS6, non-CC subscriber I
would use Dropbox for collaboration.

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.

It does not meet your perception of the issue 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".

Other than you remaining in denial regarding my actual experience using
Photoshop & Lightroom.

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.

From you that was not unanticipated.

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.

Just preempting your comment, so let's bring this pointless discussion
with you to a close.

As much as I am tempted, I will refrain from an ad hominem insult
slinging match.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not always.

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.

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.

adobe didn't come up with the name. it's what everyone calls it,
because it's non-destructive.

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.

it's not non-linear undo.

it's a parametric editor and is more advanced than pixel editors.

Basically you can go back to the beginning and do it
right the second time.

nope. that is *completely* wrong.

there is no need whatsoever to go back to the beginning.

you have no idea what you're talking about.

But you can't reverse what
you already did if it was Unsharp Mask.

wrong on that too.

not only can it be reversed or modified, but so can any other operation.

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".

it can be.

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

topics drift. deal with it.

On 9/16/2014 4:36 PM, 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".

it can be.

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

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.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
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.

On 9/16/2014 4:36 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

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.

not always.


When opening a RAW ifile in PS from ACR, when wouldn't that work?

--
PeterN

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:39:18 -0400, PeterN wrote:

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."

According to nospam Floyd and I are exceptions.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens