A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lenses and sharpening



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 16th 14, 06:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Lenses and sharpening

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.

A non-destructive workflow makes that irreversible function very
reversible indeed.

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.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #52  
Old September 16th 14, 06:38 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Lenses and sharpening

In article 2014091522353122268-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


A non-destructive workflow makes that irreversible function very
reversible indeed.

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.


exactly.
  #53  
Old September 16th 14, 06:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Lenses and sharpening

On 2014-09-16 02:07:14 +0000, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-09-15 22:33:57 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:15:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-09-15 16:39:45 +0000,
(Floyd L. Davidson) said:

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 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.
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.


That is in fact a valid statement. The USM function is
not reversible.


Note: my words were; “not entirely valid”. Meaning there is certainly
an element of validity to your statement, because apparently (I don’t
know this for sure) you don’t use a non-destructive workflow.

That isn't a opinion, it's a fact.


It is certainly a fact in a world where you have taken that step to
merge layers and compress the file into a lossy JPEG now locked in
stone. From that point on, you are correct, it is not reversible.

However, in the non-destructive workflow I use it is quite possible for
me to return to my layered PSD or TIF (I might well have a JPEG of the
adjusted image saved somewhere for sharing) and I can return to reopen
each filter, or adjustment layer, including USM, make tweaks to the
parameters, or even remove that USM layer altogether. That will give me
something quite different. The JPEG which might be produced is just a
compressed, lossy snapshot of the actual, non-destructively adjusted,
and uncompressed layered PSD, or TIF.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #54  
Old September 16th 14, 09:01 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Lenses and sharpening

On Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:19:52 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.

Fine, fine. If you wear a reversible jacket do call it, too, a
non-destructive work flow?

Of course not. There are several subtly different meanings to the word
'reversible' and you seem to have only learned one of them.

floyd would be the one who has only learned one of them.

everything in a non-destructive workflow is reversible. that's the
whole *point* and why it's so useful.


It's your point, but it wasn't Floyds and it's not what I want to
discuss. Why don't you shut up? You may learn something.


tell that to floyd.

he knows nothing about non-destructive workflows or how they work,
going so far to say that they are for cartoon characters.


You are not listening. You are not thinking either. Just you usual
blah blah blah.

if anyone needs to learn something, it's him.


Whatever it is, you have nothing to teach him.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #55  
Old September 16th 14, 09:05 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Lenses and sharpening

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.

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.

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #56  
Old September 16th 14, 09:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Lenses and sharpening

On 16/09/2014 05:37, John McWilliams wrote:
On 9/15/14 PDT, 7:07 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck wrote:


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.


IN an environment that supports a saved original copy so that all edits
are non-destructive then that is true.

But the mathematics of blurring and of unsharp masking make it
irreversible if you are only given just the processed image.
(and not some hybrid Photoshop workflow encapsulated format)

That is in fact a valid statement. The USM function is
not reversible.

That isn't a opinion, it's a fact.


For one definition of the word!


This seems to have degenerated into a heated and utterly pointless
semantic argument over the meaning of "reversible" that is in conflict
with normal image processing and mathematical parlance.

A mathematical operation is reversible if a strict inverse function
exists that can exactly get you back to where you started.

Any operation can be made non-destructive simply by saving a copy of the
original before applying the irreversible filter but that isn't very
interesting. Some packages do support this sort of safe workflow.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #57  
Old September 16th 14, 09:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Lenses and sharpening

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

  #58  
Old September 16th 14, 10:08 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Lenses and sharpening

On 2014-09-16 08:12:12 +0000, Martin Brown
said:

On 16/09/2014 05:37, John McWilliams wrote:
On 9/15/14 PDT, 7:07 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Savageduck wrote:


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.


IN an environment that supports a saved original copy so that all edits
are non-destructive then that is true.


Exactly.

But the mathematics of blurring and of unsharp masking make it
irreversible if you are only given just the processed image.
(and not some hybrid Photoshop workflow encapsulated format)


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.

That is in fact a valid statement. The USM function is
not reversible.

That isn't a opinion, it's a fact.


For one definition of the word!


This seems to have degenerated into a heated and utterly pointless
semantic argument over the meaning of "reversible" that is in conflict
with normal image processing and mathematical parlance.


Normal imaging processing? You might have noticed that currently, Adobe
produces the industry standard software in that category, and those of
us who use Lightroom and Photoshop have been provided the tools to
maintain a truly non-destructive and reversible workflow.

A mathematical operation is reversible if a strict inverse function
exists that can exactly get you back to where you started.


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

Any operation can be made non-destructive simply by saving a copy of
the original before applying the irreversible filter but that isn't
very interesting.


However, that isn’t quite how things work in a truly non-destructive
workflow. What you have described is what at best could be called a
pseudo-non-destructive workflow. Just working on a duplicate of the
original isn’t the idea. To be truly non-destructive and reversible one
has to be able to return to the actual file they were working on. That
is going to be either a layered PSD, or TIF. 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”.

Some packages do support this sort of safe workflow.


I know, I know.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #59  
Old September 16th 14, 11:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default Lenses and sharpening

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.

EURand 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.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #60  
Old September 16th 14, 03:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Lenses and sharpening

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.

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.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharpening Alfred Molon[_4_] Digital Photography 23 April 3rd 13 06:57 PM
Sharpening Ockham's Razor Digital Photography 11 February 6th 07 09:35 PM
Am I over-sharpening? Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address Digital Photography 12 February 9th 06 07:58 AM
RAW sharpening embee Digital Photography 11 December 24th 04 04:43 PM
D70 on-camera sharpening vs. Photoshop sharpening john Digital Photography 7 July 23rd 04 10:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.