I didn't say there was a better way, I said there might be a better way.
And there might be technology that will make pigs file and allow humans to transport themselves to the USS Enterprise.
And I certainly don't have to prove it to you or anybody else.
No, you don't. That makes it especially easy to dismiss your remakes. Basic scientific methodically states* that its not up to me to prove a hypothesis or theory, its up to me (or others) to disprove it! Considering the number of users of this product, where's the smoking gun that the current implementation is anything but adequate if not better? Where's the scientific methodically? Dan M. suggested that the curves in Photoshop are broken, Mark's article used the scientific method to dismiss his claims, Dan never responded to Mark's points even though he was asked to. While some could say Mark's piece isn't the end all summery that puts this scientific debate to rest, he at least conducted himself in a scientific manner with his essays and as far as I know, they have not been disproved let alone argued. As such, I'm far more willing to believe what I see, have tested and what I've read about just as I'm far more inclined to believe in the theory of evolution then those who say the world was created 6 thousand years ago.
You "proof" consists of millions of images being processed, so what? millions of people drink cheap crap coffee everyday, that doesn't make it the best coffee in the world, just the most convenient.
In essence I'm saying don't believe it just because Adobe say so, do what you did and find out for yourself. If Adobe said up was down would you believe that? some here would. Wayne
IOW, you're just a skeptic.
*The scientific method requires a hypothesis to be eliminated if experiments repeatedly contradict predictions. No matter how great a hypothesis sounds, it is only as good as it's ability to consistently predict experimental results. It should also be noted that a theory or hypothesis is not meaningful if it is not quantitative and testable. If a theory does not allow for predictions and experimental research to confirm these predictions, than it is not a scientific theory.
The hypothesis is, Photoshop curves are or are not ideally designed based on a change in saturation with the tonal adjustment. Repeated usage of the curves by millions of users on perhaps billions of images have or have not provided the desired effect by the end user? End users are or are not producing the desired edit using the curves as designed? End users do or do not have the ability to alter this behavior for times in which they do want to lock the appearance of saturation when using curves?