Google| Subject | Re: Is RGB to Lab lossy? - was(Re: Lenses and sharpening) |
| From | Eric Stevens |
| Date | 10/08/2014 01:17 (10/08/2014 12:17) |
| Message-ID | <6ss83apg3dn2q2p89cocd6lv0cmu53rndc@4ax.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | Martin Brown (9h & 59m) |
On Tue, 07 Oct 2014 17:26:23 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
nospamBut you are also arguing that the damage is such that conversions to Lab should be completely avoided. You are heaping abuse on Dan Margulis who teaches how to use Lab. You are not just arguing that Lab conversions cause damage (no matter how infinitesmal that damage may be). You *hate* the idea of Lab conversion and froth at the mouth when the possibility is mentioned. Your opposition to Lab is totally irrational. --
In article <slrnm38mt9.fqc.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:nospamSandmanMartin BrownEric Stevens
Since CIELAB is a colour space intended to manage just noticeably colour differences more optimally than the naive RGB colour space it isn't too surprising that you cannot *see* a difference in the final JPG taken from RGB or via CIELAB. But they are very slightly different.
Agreed, but the question is, does the difference matter?
That wasn't, however, "the question", Eric. You quote Dan saying this:
"RGB>LAB>RGB is damage free"
That is an incorrect statement, which nospam has corrected. That is all.
yep.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
09/13/2014-
