Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | PeterN |
| Date | 10/01/2014 02:30 (09/30/2014 20:30) |
| Message-ID | <m0fhul05p4@news4.newsguy.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (1h & 3m) > PeterN |
On 9/30/2014 6:17 PM, nospam wrote:
nospamYou are talking theory, when I asked you for proof of your statement. All you hve shown is a lin to an Intrnet group conversation. It should be very easy for you to prove that you are correct. Absent such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.
In article <8aam2apa0r82mtv6gbfa9tf87ugm81tio1@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:nospamyou'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.
it didn't but even if it did, it doesn't matter.
rgb->lab->rgb is lossy. period.
-- PeterN
09/13/2014-
