Re: Of colorful scepticism
Re: Of colorful scepticism
- Subject: Re: Of colorful scepticism
- From: Igor <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 23:52:22 +0200
The discussion about camera profiling tends to swing towards technical
problems. As if there is a technical solution.
It is not a technical problem, it is a perceptual problem.
As it happens I met today mr. Pieter Walraven, secretary on the board of
the CIE. (It's not as if I meet these people every day: it's merely
coincidence) We were discussing a certain colour stimulus. Someone asked
what colour we would see with this stimulus. Mr. Walraven gave a very
interesting reply wich I think fits right into our current disussion.
He said:
As science cannot look into someone's head, science is not able to
determine what colour any person sees. If we're talking about red, we
just have to assume everyone sees the same, but that's probably not the
case. That's why science restricts itself to comparing colours. We can
scientifically determine if two colours look the same. We cannot
determine wich colour is really perceived.
It seems to me that if we cannot determine wich colour we really see, it
is impossible to match a camera to the eyes. But reading the posts, it
looks as if this is what people expect of a camera profile. Remember
what John Gnaegy said?:
how can I recreate on another device (a display) what that apple would
have looked like if I had been looking over the shoulder of the
photographer.
There we have the problem. Colours as we perceive them are not fixed and
objective, they are relative and subjective. So that's how a camera
should work: relative and subjective. I'd say that sure throws it
outside the scope of colour management as we know it.
......notwithstanding the fact that a camera profile CAN be usefull to
solve minor technical problems.
Igor Asselbergs