Re: Of colorful scepticism
Re: Of colorful scepticism
- Subject: Re: Of colorful scepticism
- From: Igor <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 00:20:22 +0200
Scott Olswold wrote:
>
I think the point you are missing is that a profile of a digital camera
>
is,
>
at its most simple, a description of how the CCD is behaving based on a
>
known target (whether that be IT.8 or something known that you've made
>
up).
While you know the properties of the target, you don't know the
properties of the light. It makes huge difference in what lighting
conditions the target was captured. So you're basically doing two things;
1: profiling a scene.
2: using the profile as a standard as to refer all your shots to. (Wich,
yes, might come very handy and might at least make the captured images
'predictable' to a certain degree.)
However: you are NOT profiling your ccd, nor your camera.
>
I believe (in fact, am a victim of it--I'm B-G color deficient in my
>
right
>
eye) your statement on the subjectivity of color between observers.
The perceptual problems I'm talking about are not the result of colour
deficiencies, but are inherent to the human vision system. However: I
bet you 'see' one image, not two different ones. I bet there have been
times you weren't even aware of your colour deficiency.
Wich would prove (as if it hasn't allready been proven time and again)
that colours are not fixed, but allways adjusted (or rather
reconstructed) in the brain.
>
The goal of color
>
management is predictable color output. If the observer notices no real
>
difference between steps A, B, and C then color management (and by
>
extension, our profiling) has done its job.
I must admit this discussion is (at least partly) academic because
'camera profiling' seems to work for a lot of people. Even so: I think
most people would agree camera profiling as it is today is far from
perfect. Now why is that?
Igor Asselbergs