Do you like your Corel PaintShop Pro X7?

<p>Andrew,<br>

The teaching moment remark is obviously lost on you. You could have explained the reasons why there are different numbers and brought up the points I made in my previous post right away. Instead you decided to repeatedly insult me and not answer my requests for explanations; by your own admission, you thought that was kind of funny. Haha.<br>

I was misled by Adobe's statement that the initial temperature number came straight from the camera's metadata. If that were the case, why couldn't other RAW converters do the same? Yes, I assumed that Adobe was correct; my mistake.<br>

I also thought that IF the temperature was calculated from color coordinates that you could and should expect an accuracy of a couple of 100K.<br>

Yes, I now understand how sloppy this issue is being dealt with by Adobe and others and have no longer an expectation of any accuracy, but that's not thanks to- but in spite of- you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The teaching moment remark is obviously lost on you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The learning is lost on you! Especially after dozens of outside posts from others that have dismissed your misunderstandings. <br /> Since you are now so interested in learning, you should ask yourself where and how you incorrectly learned about CCT to believe that for the same RAW file <strong>you would expect</strong> any raw converter to be able to calculate the CCT within a couple of 100K. It’s simply wrong.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was misled by Adobe's statement that the initial temperature number came straight from the camera's metadata.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And so much more. But as I said posts and posts ago, it’s pointless. You are treating the scientific facts provided by multiple sources including me as if this was one of your tea-party debates and up to some political interpretation. That will not work here Frans.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I now understand how sloppy this issue is being dealt with by Adobe and others and have no longer an expectation of any accuracy, but that's not thanks to- but in spite of- you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing sloppy is your initial understanding and worse, your inability to study the facts from multiple sources that dismiss your assumptions. But it is typical of you to blame any and everyone but your self, this time Adobe. <br /> Now isn't it really time to move on?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, good idea, move on and go insult someone else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If attempting to educate you, then having to spend a lot of time providing evidence of your misunderstanding ad infinitum results in insulting you, sorry bud. But it was you sir who threw the first stone! I pointed that out just after you did so but you missed it as usual. And you completely ignored the facts as usual. <br /><br>

Here's an insult based on your participation here after I attempted to steer you into the right thinking about CCT: you're not very bright in that you simply can't accept the facts if it gets in the way of your uneducated and incorrect understanding of color. </p>