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.

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.

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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck