The following comments are personal opinions and should not be construed to
represent any positions of my employer.
CIECAM02 has been used in the production of ICC profiles by many people
since it's adoption. It is most certainly not unique to WCS. The improved
definition of the Profile Connection Space in a version 4 profile allows
for, and almost demands, the routine use of this and other improved color
appearance spaces. The Microsoft WCS white paper demonstrated a certain
degree of naiveté of the current thinking inside the ICC which isn't
surprising because MS isn't part of the organization anymore. CIECAM02 and
other color appearance models are routinely used by camera manufacturers in
the input rendering process to sRGB. Adobe RGB is now specified to the
point that appearance can be used in that rendering process on input to the
If you want to understand where the main problem is today in color
management, open a print driver from your favorite printer vendor and try to
assign a custom paper profile to the device. That assumes that you had some
real control of setting the printer to a reliable state when you profiled
it. The operating system folks basically failed to guide (or their advice
was ignored) the print vendors' towards open use of profiles. The printer
vendors certainly don't encourage custom inks and media. Nothing in WCS
would indicate that anything will change. If anything, the system will be
more closed to custom input, not open.
The whole concept of "late binding" probably will be totally unacceptable in
the professional graphic arts field. The last thing you want is a gamut
surprise when you go to print on your digital press. The maintenance of the
black printer through multiple edits will be a welcome addition but one has
to wonder how they plan to prevent the late-binding gamut issues from
affecting the look of a group of pictures, particularly if the images come
from multiple sources....
The challenge in any Colormanagement Scenario is the implementation, not the
science. If the implementation team of WCS is to make any impact at all,
they need to understand needs of the customer and marketplace. The WCS
white paper spoke to the issue of the improved business model as a result of
implementation of WCS technology, but talk is cheap. Open a Canon printer
under Windows XP today and try printing a version 4 color managed document
through Explorer. :
and print to the same Canon printer and it works fine if you set the "Use
ICM" flag properly . Windows XP and the Canon printer seem to handle
Version 4 ICC profiles just fine, technically.
The problem is in the configuration of the printer, the "Use ICM" flag (if
you can find it) only sticks if the printer is configured as the default
printer through the operating system. Is Canon going to add a "Use WCS"
flag to the print driver? The point to all of this is that the science is
working fine, for the most part, in both Windows XP and OSX. The problem is
in the interface to the consumer , the ability to customize color for unique
media and the potential for color tuning are all lost or buried. There is
nothing in the WCS documents to indicate that will change. The challenge
isn't applying Ciecam02, or Colorsync vs. WCS. The challenge is
understanding the needs of the customer and building systems that work
together. This is an area where the printer vendors and OS vendors have
failed miserably. If a simple problem like this can't be solved, why should
we believe that WCS will solve any real market problem?
regards to all
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden