Subject | Re: Is RGB to Lab lossy? - was(Re: Lenses and sharpening) |
From | nospam |
Date | 10/06/2014 03:05 (10/05/2014 21:05) |
Message-ID | <051020142105226649%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Eric Stevens |
a book by dan margulis is a complete waste of time and money. he has constantly been proven wrong by pretty much everyone else in the industry.Eric StevensEric StevensSavageduck
Yes, and it's common to evrything you do. So why does converting to Lab allegedly make it so much worse?
The bigger question is; Why would anybody use LAB at all these days, but for some arcane process few folks are using?
Read http://tinyurl.com/malzpsu
switching to lab to get rid of haze??SavageduckEric Stevens
There is no real benefit from using LAB in a daily Photoshop workflow given the massive changes in the various tools and PS algorithms since the days of PS6 & PS7, you might have noticed that PS CC 2014 is currently = PS 15.1.0.
Quite true.SavageduckEric Stevens
So far the only reason those who actually use LAB for some purpose or another can give (Peter says he likes to sharpen in LAB, when what he means is he likes to over sharpen using any method he can get his hands on) is some guru writing 20 years ago has claimed that it is the way to go. Frankly for most photographers running current editions of PS CS5/CS6/CC/CC 2014), using LAB for anything other than some sort of specialized work, is a waste of time, and trying to find some way to defend its use in a never ending Usenet screech-fest thread, is an even bigger waste of time.
For a start, it's great for getting rid of haze.