Print Sharpening in Lightroom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jisner

If your history has 100 edits, why doesn't Lightroom slow down noticeably?

Because Lightroom programmers are taking advantage of the fact that most edits can be collapsed into a single curve.

---

I very much doubt it. Do you have a credible reference to back up that statement?

Quote:

---

Take a look at David Barranca's scripts for visualizing parametric edits in Photoshop.

---

The link refers to PhotoShop CS, not Lightroom, and describes a separate utility, not some part of an editor's operation, as far as I can see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jisner

The "original photograph" is whatever you import into Lightroom. If you import a jpeg, it's the jpeg. If you import a raw file, it's the raster preview created from the raw file by de-mosaicing, applying a gamma curve, etc. If you import a PSD, it's the preview that Photoshop embeds in the PSD or TIFF.

The original photograph is represented by the state at the the bottom of the history stack.

How do you know that Lightroom does not modify the original photograph? Because you can always go back to it, no matter how many edits you have applied. When you go back to an earlier history state, Lightroom only needs to remove edits from a chain of parametric edit instructions and re-render what you see on the screen. The re-rendering is done by applying the remaining edits to the original photograph.

If your history has 100 edits, why doesn't Lightroom slow down noticeably? Because Lightroom programmers are taking advantage of the fact that most edits can be collapsed into a single curve. Take a look at David Barranca's scripts for visualizing parametric edits in Photoshop.

---

I'll show the diagram again. Some jokers like to make fun of it but don't contribute to the thread.
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4192/3...e18c16e2_n.jpg

Clear in that diagram is that when opening a jpg it's decompressed and loaded in memory as a rgb raster image. That's where all the editing is done at. In a pixel based way. And both by parametric and non parametric programs. Changes to the original are only made when saving this image. The original file is overwritten. See the line with 2 arrows. Only then you loose the original image.
The difference between (non)parametric programs is the way of saving. A non parametric program is saving the image in the same format at the same place, so overwriting the original image. A parametric program is adding a list of eddings to that original image.

Thinking about what that guy in the link to that forum said, a difference between (non)parametric programs is the missing of the Save button. Save means saving in the same format at the same place, overwriting the original. If you want to do something else you need to choice the Save As button. Either the Save button has disappeared or the behaviour has changed. And some programs make use of the Export button.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by george013

I'll show the diagram again. Some jokers like to make fun of it but don't contribute to the thread.

---

Some non-jokers here (at least two) are sick and tired of that diagram.

I have pointed out to you the errors in the diagram and it remains uncorrected. Therefore it has low credibility in my book and is, in any case, over-simplified - by which I mean that it tells most of us nothing new.

Now, I can't tell you not to post your diagram ad nauseam; equally, I can not tell you to correct it but I CAN ask.

What do you say, George?

Could you at least change "scherm" to "screen" and "editer" to "editor", or have you no pride in your work at all?

I think it is time to shut this thread down, but I will add a few observations.

In George's defense, IMHO, criticisms of his English are unwarranted. I have learned to speak two languages other than my native English, and George's mastery of English is far better than my mastery of either of them. And George, I am only guessing, but given that you are Dutch, I would guess that you speak at least 3, perhaps 4, languages. Hats off to you. And I think we should welcome non-native speakers from anywhere to this forum.

However, George, your behavior on this thread has not been constructive. You seem to be determined to maintain the argument for the sake of argument and never concede that anyone else has posted anything valuable or that you have learned from anyone's posts. For example, you wrote:

Quote:

---

Thinking about what that guy in the link to that forum said, a difference between (non)parametric programs is the missing of the Save button.

---

Regardless of what some random person has posted somewhere, others on this thread have explained carefully some of the differences between what are called by almost everyone pixel-based and parametric editors, and it is more than the absence of a save button. Manfred's post was particularly clear and detailed.

Dan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

I think it is time to shut this thread down

---

Amen to that! To this casual and distant observer, the thread has become a series of arguments for the sake of arguing, not learning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

I think it is time to shut this thread down, but I will add a few observations.

In George's defense, IMHO, criticisms of his English are unwarranted. I have learned to speak two languages other than my native English, and George's mastery of English is far better than my mastery of either of them. And George, I am only guessing, but given that you are Dutch, I would guess that you speak at least 3, perhaps 4, languages. Hats off to you. And I think we should welcome non-native speakers from anywhere to this forum.

However, George, your behavior on this thread has not been constructive. You seem to be determined to maintain the argument for the sake of argument and never concede that anyone else has posted anything valuable or that you have learned from anyone's posts. For example, you wrote:



Regardless of what some random person has posted somewhere, others on this thread have explained carefully some of the differences between what are called by almost everyone pixel-based and parametric editors, and it is more than the absence of a save button. Manfred's post was particularly clear and detailed.

Dan

---

I'm just trying to correct Manfred's and others remark about parametric editors. I just don't get an answer on my arguments. It's so much easier when you just see the global lines. If you want to go in it knowing those lines will help you.
Sharpening, this threads subject, is a wonderful example of using rasters. If you start sharpening a call to a procedure ProcSharpen(x,y,z....) is made with some parameters. You don't have to move with your mouse across the image to point individual elements. This is done as well in Lightroom as in Photoshop. When you save this as a command, then one calls it a parametric editor. Being aware of that will be helpful in future.

That diagram I made for myself. I got confused with all those half or non trues in this and other fora. I posted it for a diagram or drawing is much easier to understand, to remember, to explain to others and to play with.
It's helpful in this thread although nobody wants to admit. It gives answer on another many times asked question: why does my jpg look different from raw.

Let me end.
It's pixel/raster based vs vector based.
It's parametric vs non parametric.
The used tools in a program is a matter of program design.

Over and out.:o

George

I have closed this thread as it is going nowhere.

Quote:

---

I'm just trying to correct Manfred's and others remark about parametric editors.

---

George - have you ever considered that we are correct in our comments and you are not? The same thing goes for your diagram. A number of people have pointed out that it contains fundamental errors, yet you keep reposting it without making any corrections.