Re: Of colorful scepticism
Re: Of colorful scepticism
- Subject: Re: Of colorful scepticism
- From: Igor Asselbergs <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 15:24:26 +0200
Henrik Holmegaard wrote:
>
This is one of the most common metaphysical labyrinths
Maybe. I'm not a professional filosopher, so my reasoning may not be
perfect.
But I'd prefer some practical arguments over comments on my style of
reasoning.
Fact is: I spend a lot of my time looking at photo's and making judgements
about their colours. I can tell you I tried using camera profiles and it
simply didn't work. And thinking about it afterwards I came to the
conclusion camera profiles simply don't make sense. Maybe my reasoning is
flawed, but the facts aren't. Is that clear enough?
btw:
In the course of thinking about the subject I once did a little experiment.
I took a standard A4 NCS colour sample and within minutes I took some 20
shots on slightly different locations, using one and the same film, using
the best possible adjustments of the camera (a nikon F601). Then I scanned
the film, all images with the same adjustments. Just for fun I measured the
deltaE values in the middle of the photographed samples, compared to the
CIElab value of the NCS sample. Minimum deltaE was 7.5, maximum was 39.2.
The fact that the photographed ncs sample differed from the original should
come as no surprise. But from the fact that the photographed samples had
very large differences among eachother, has led me to the conclusion that a
profile would be useless.
I'll be happy to mail the detailed results to anyone interested.
>
There are literally hundreds of papers that will help you out of this
>
misconception about color
Ok, if you can point me some on the web, I'll certainly look into it.
I'll do my best to prevent myself from waisting mine and your bandwith with
'descriptive logic', if I possibly can.
:-)
Igor Asselbergs