nospam
In article <2v963atfma569hkhho2a0437uk7t2jr12c@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Alan Browne
But if one went to Lab space and back along the way, then it will always be lossy even if nothing was done in Lab space.

Eric Stevens
True, but as I found in my experiments (as described again, below) the loss on conversion is close to zero. The argument is not whether or not there is any loss in going through Lab space but whether or not the loss is significant. nospam seems to equate even the smallest loss arising from Lab conversion as significant

nospam
once again, i never said it was significant. i said it's lossy and it is.

stop lying about what i say, but at least you finally agree.

Eric Stevens
but he forgets that the fact that he has loaded the image into an editor is going to wreak considerably more damage to the original image.

nospam
not necessarily.

Eric Stevens
That's why I think he is talking nondense when he advocates not using Lab so as to avoid damage.

nospam
there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to use lab because just about everything you can do in lab can be done without a lab conversion *and* avoid the losses.

if you apply the same logic, shooting entirely in jpeg is the way to go because ultimately, the image will be a jpeg anyway.