Lenses and sharpening

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Floyd has no idea what he's talking about, so as soon as someone knows what
they're talking about, they're by definition not talking about whatever it
is Floyd is babbling about.

yep.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

A non-destructive work flow does not make a process reversible. All it
does is let you have another go at a process using different settings.

which means it can be reversed.

On 2014-09-17 08:02:05 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
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 doesnâEUR(Tm)t control the flow and drift
of any thread.

There is much more to post processing than FloydâEUR(Tm)s way
of doing things. Even though he denies the reality of
the tools available to the Photoshop user.

You and nospam continue to try shifting everything to
the one thing you claim to know, which is how to read an
Abobe user manual.

Nobody has denied that Photoshop users can do this or
that. The problem is that Photoshop's capabilities, or
lack thereof, are not the topic in this thread no matter
how limited your personal horizons are.

The topic was sharpening, and the differences in ways to
do that. Abobe's programs are not even close to the
only way to sharpen. In fact *most* users that actually
get into the more sophisticated aspects of sharpening
cease using anything that Abobe provides for that
purpose, and shift to better tools.

Generic atributes of sharpen tools can and should be
discussed absent references to specific implementations.
When specific attributes are discussed it doesn't make a
great deal of sense to look at low end products designed
to appeal to the lowest common denominator, as might
well be discussed in your "Abobe Tools for Dummies"
manual.

Floyd you are so arrogant and and predictable, andso much in denial
believing that your rejection of all things Adobe makes you some sort
of superior intellect, when just the opposite is obvious. "Adobe tools
for Dummies" says all there is to be said regarding your character.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-09-17 09:22:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:27:43 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-17 04:08:19 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 07:53:15 -0700, 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 doesn?t really matter
what you want the correct terms would be. I will take ?reversible? 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,
?non-destructive?.

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.

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.

That's why I never included a conversion to JPG in my example of a
reversible process.

…but that genius Floyd did.

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.

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 ?version-1.jpg?. Once you are done with readjusting
the layered PSD/TIF you can produce ?version-2.jpg?, and still have the
ability to return to the working PSD/TIF to produce a ?version-3.jpg?.

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.

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. 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 isn?t much point
in going any further and we should just agree to disagree, you in your
World, and me in mine.

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 isnÂ’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.

No one who understood what we were trying to talk about would claim
that a JPG conversion is a reversible process.

…but that genius Floyd did.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-09-17 09:28:46 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 01:29:01 -0400, nospam
wrote:

Le Snip

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*.

Which has nothing to with whether or not a process is reversible.

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).

But you can't do that once the image has been exported.

That is only a version, or JPEG snapshot of the current state, that had
been exported. It is done, and if there is an issue forget reworking
that. The working PSD/TIF is still available for revision and fully
capable of creating version #2, version#3, and so on.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-09-17 09:39:44 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 22:39:44 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-17 04:23:29 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

Le Snip

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.

A non-destructive work flow does not make a process reversible. All it
does is let you have another go at a process using different settings.

Huh!
I guess you just don’t get it. That CC subscription is so obviously
wasted when you seem to have missed a key feature of Photoshop, and
would rather go your way than learn how to actually use what you are
paying for.

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
doesnÂ’t control the flow and drift of any thread.

Floyd was trying to address the question raised by the OP. The arrival
of nospam and then you on the scene confusing non-destructive editing
with whether a process is reversible or not has brought all sensible
discussion to a halt.

There is much more to post processing than FloydÂ’s way of doing things.
Even though he denies the reality of the tools available to the
Photoshop user.

I'm afraid it's not a turf war. What Floyd said was perfectly correct
and fundamental. It's quite independent of the editing software.

Sigh…


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-09-17 09:42:00 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:42:32 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

Le Snip

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/Photo%20Jan%2005%2C%2012%2038%2052.jpg

I'm

disappointed to hear that.

It doesn't take much to disappoint you then.

Given that arrogant arcane Floydian bloviation, I probably should have
used this one for him rather than that more subtle expression above. I
just restrained myself too much.
https://db.tt/gjBql5bJ

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-09-17 09:46:23 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

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.

Not really, no.

reversible
adjective
able to be reversed, in particular:
• (of the effects of a process or condition) capable of being reversed so
that the previous state or situation is restored

That fits both scenarios. Floyd is stubbornly trying to force everyone else
to have "reversible" mean that a process needs another process to reverse
its effect, but that's not how the word works. Floyd is notoriously
ignorant about word meanings, so no surprise there.

The undo function in Photoshop makes any process reversible, simple as
that. If you want to be able to save the file and reverse USM when opening
it again, use smart filters. That means that USM is 100% reversible at any
point in the future, on any image.

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. This is not the same as just cancelling the operation as you do
when you delete it from a sidecar file.

Of course it's not the same. That doesn't mean that deleting an instruction
that leads to a specific result doesn't mean the instruction is reversible.
The fact that you *can* delete it means that it is by definition
reversible.

In fact, "Reversible" comes from the word "reverse", which means "move
back". The undo function is the most obvious example of a reversible
process.

Deleting (or turning off) an instruction in a non-destructive workflow
reverses its affect on the result.

Ta da!!
Give that man a cigar!

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 9/17/2014 1:04 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-17 01:03:35 +0000, PeterN said:

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?

Easily done. Just remember that any content aware fill or editing cannot
be done on an SO. So do the spot removal in ACR.

Open as *Smart Object* after making ACR adjustments, you can always
double click on that SO background layer to return to ACR and readjust.
Make adjustments to taste, and save layered PSD One caveat when it comes
to sharing the layered file, it is huge because of the layers. The
example PSD below runs 800+MB so I won't be posting that here,unless
there are individual request for email link delivery.

So I end up with this in PS.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_905.jpg
and a PSD with Smart Objects and all adjustments intact ready for any
revision, saved to its very own CC folder, or wherever you want it.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_907.jpg

Since you are not using Lightroom, to get a JPEG go to File-Save for Web.
configure the JPEG dimensions, compression, etc. and Save.
That is simple enough, and the working files remain intact in PS.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_906.jpg

That results in a JPEG and I can still return to the layered JPEG to
produce a different version just by tweaking/reediting or removing layers.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/_DNC6132-SW-1.jpg


All very true. And I personally do not use smart objects.
But my question to nosense was not answered.

--
PeterN

On 9/17/2014 1:07 AM, 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.


You mean like how you answered my request for more details on opening
RAW files?


--
PeterN