Eric Stevens
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:21:04 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

nospam
In article <m0c13t09k1@news1.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:

PeterN
I forgot to mention the age of the article,

nospam
no you didn't.

PeterN
Show me where

nospam
one cannot prove a negative.

PeterN
IOW. You made another unprovable statement. I said that I did not mention hte dae of an articel. YOu said I did. I asked where. The only thing unprovable is the truth of your statement.

nospam
i said you didn't *forget*, not that it matters since the date is completely irrelevant and you know it. it's nothing more than a diversion because you are completely full of shit.

PeterN
If it doesn't matter, why do you bring it up.

nospam
you're the one who brought it up.

you're trying to claim that somehow the math for the rgb->lab transform has somehow changed in the time the article has been written. that's absurd. it hasn't. only an idiot would make that claim.

Eric Stevens
From what I have read, I suspect the actual colour working space inside Photoshop may have changed somewhere about CS2. That *would* affect the transforms in and out of that space.