Google| Subject | Re: Lenses and sharpening |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 10/01/2014 03:33 (09/30/2014 21:33) |
| Message-ID | <300920142133532502%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | PeterN |
| Followups | PeterN (13h & 16m) > nospam |
In article <m0fhul05p4@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:
proof was given.PeterNnospamnospamEric Stevens
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.
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.
You are talking theory, when I asked you for proof of your statement.
All you hve shown is a lin to an Intrnet group conversation.eric posted the link, not me. you got *that* wrong too.
It should be very easy for you to prove that you are correct.i did, as did others.
Absent such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.dan marguilis is wrong. period.
the link you keep referring to proves he is wrong, which means you didn't read it.
it also means you are wrong (no surprise there) and you once again demonstrate how much of a blithering idiot you are.
09/13/2014-
