nospam
In article <m0fhul05p4@news4.newsguy.com>, PeterN <peter@verizon.net> wrote:

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.

nospam
it didn't but even if it did, it doesn't matter.

rgb->lab->rgb is lossy. period.

PeterN
You are talking theory, when I asked you for proof of your statement.

nospam
proof was given.

PeterN
All you hve shown is a lin to an Intrnet group conversation.

nospam
eric posted the link, not me. you got *that* wrong too.

PeterN
It should be very easy for you to prove that you are correct.

nospam
i did, as did others.

PeterN
Absent such proof I trust Dan Margulies's opinion, more than yours. p\Peroid.

nospam
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.