Re: Adobe VS Colormatch?
Re: Adobe VS Colormatch?
- Subject: Re: Adobe VS Colormatch?
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 12:36:05 EDT
In a message dated 8/28/01 10:43:29 AM, email@hidden writes:
>
I just read an artilce by Dan Margulis (Electronic Publishing, August 2001)
>
who recommended using Apple RGB for certain images where there are large
>
blocks of bright colors. It certainly fixed the problem we were getting
>
with Adobe RGB and over-emphasized reds and magentas. An interesting
>
article...thanks Dan!
I found the article interesting, if a bit disturbing, as well. I agree whole
heartedly that there are times when profiles need to be manipulted in advance
of opening data, to adjust primary points in a way that is not posssible
later. I also agree that compression limitations and issues with current ICC
specs and profiling methods can make hacking the system with different
profile sizes a needed emergency tool. But Dan's method is crude and somewhat
off target. What is needed is a series of spaces that are symetrical, so that
color casts do not occur, but larger and smaller than one another (the Pappa
bear, Mamma bear, Baby bear spaces I have described previously) for gamut
compression and expansion, and a different series that have similar sizes to
these, but different shapes, with the primaries spread further in one or or
more directions, so that images can be cast adjusted or hue bias shifted, by
moving from one to another. Different color bears in each size, if you like
(DeadHead references only slightly intentional). Such a set of spaces will
allow a much more intentional and controlled adjustment of color than
randomly opening in canned Photoshop spaces, whitepoint and gamma be damned,
as Dan was demonstrating.
Compression and bias controls in the ICC process itself would be the ultimate
solution, but in the interum, having tools in ColorThink to generate such
sets of spaces would be useful... (are you listening Steve? <G>)
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden