Re: I Never Met A Profile I Liked!
Re: I Never Met A Profile I Liked!
- Subject: Re: I Never Met A Profile I Liked!
- From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:57:49 -0700
At 5:38 PM -0400 8/30/01, Robert M Eversole wrote:
>Accurate needs to be defined. Best gray balance? Best tonal range? Most
accurate match of an original (and then how was the object captured and how
does that affect the process)?
Exactly my point! You can't define accurate because it is not static. To
make it even more difficult, accurate may not be the desired result as you
pointed out regarding CompassProfile profiles and the opinions of
photographers.
I think there's one more index of accuracy, which to me is the most
important one. It's how closely the profile allows you to predict the
appearance of the print, and it's one of the areas where untuned
profiles tend to be most inadequate.
I would like absolute colorimetric renderings to be accurate. That's
something we can measure and evaluate. But it tells us nothing about
how the profile handles images.
When it comes to perceptual renderings, we've obviously entered
subjective territory. I have zero expectation that any perceptual
rendering table is going to render my images the way I want it to
without some intervention on my part. Low key, high key, saturated
and pastel images all require some different treatments. If a profile
provides an accurate preview, I can get th erendering I want with no
trial and error. If it doesn't, I can't.
It's probably pointless to try to ascertai preview accuracy through
measurement of a print and a monitor, but I suspect that a comparison
of a print and a displayed image would result in a reasonable
consensus as to which profile produces the most accurate prediction
of the print.
For me, that ability to predict is the main value proposition in
color management.
Bruce
--
email@hidden