Re: Newcolor
Re: Newcolor
- Subject: Re: Newcolor
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 10:30:22 -0700
on 1/20/02 2:16 AM, Henrik Holmegaard at email@hidden wrote:
>
I know Andrew always wanted and campaigned for a
>
plug-in approach, but when the Newcolor 4000 blueprint was drawn up
>
it turned out the then TWAIN API and the then Photoshop API did not
>
support ICC profiles and the plug-in approach was dropped. You just
>
cannot build a through-and-through ICC based scanning application
>
with a non-ICC hand-off mechanism, because it makes no sense at all.
>
Maybe I should have written this a long time ago.
Not this Andrew. I have no issues at all with stand-alone applications for
driving scanners and such. I do expect that IF someone writes a plug-in for
Photoshop, it work as it should with regard to how PS deals with color
files. I understand there are limitations in the Plug-In SDK that would make
it very difficult for some people to write software that does what they
want. Any time Adobe update the SDK (which seems to be every major new
version), the plug-in manufacturer has to update their product.
I do object to products that attempt to outdo Photoshop as the supreme pixel
editor when their main task is to drive a scanner or camera. LinoColor has
some nice tools but if you look at the totally lame selection tools, it's
just silly for that product to consider itself a pixel editor. It's a damn
nice scanner driver and a pretty nice profile editor. But a pixel editor?
It's a joke. Why the engineers would even waste their time with masking
tools and brushes, especially when they don't compare with Photoshop 1.0.7
is behind me!
I understand that NewColor actually allows users to save out high bit data
so one can edit in Photoshop. This is a good sign (compared to the brain
dead concept of LinoColor where if you wanted to edit high bit data, you did
it in LinoColor or not at all).
Andrew Rodney
| References: | |
| | >Re: Newcolor (From: Henrik Holmegaard <email@hidden>) |