> > I may not have been your claim, but it most certainly is your fabrication. > > Mr. Owens wrote is as follows: "I find ***L jpeg to be more than enough for > my use, and I don't use the Pentax software. I import directly into > Photoshop via PIM." > > I did not understand him to mean, nor is it reasonable to imply that he > meant, that importing ***L jpg into PS is a panacea, only that it offers > better results than using the bundled Pentax RAW-->jpg conversion software.
And it's *precisely* that claim that I am questioning. It may be true. Or it may not be. But it seems perfectly reasonable to question this assumption, given the fact that we know there some issues with the RAW-to-JPEG conversion in Photo Laboratory. We know that the in-camera conversion seems to use a *different* algorithm. But is it better? Go ahead and nit-pick this to death again, if that's all you can offer to the discussion. It would be nice if you could offer something useful instead, but I'm not hopeful.
