Re: LAB's not a good colour space
Re: LAB's not a good colour space
- Subject: Re: LAB's not a good colour space
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 10:13:40 -0700
on 3/23/02 9:41 AM, gvido trepsha at email@hidden wrote:
>
Anybody's willing to comment on why LAB is not a good color space; and who
>
are "very few" exceptions?
No capture device captures LAB so you have to do at least one conversion to
get there (and what's the point if you are going to end up in an RGB Working
Space and further on an output space?).
The space is huge so it's bad news for 8 bits per color files.
The space is vastly larger than what you can see on screen (not that this is
a reason to avoid large gamut spaces but it's something to consider).
Few output devices come close to size of LAB. Why convert into a huge space
you can't use?
RGB is a lot easier to deal with numerically speaking.
For awhile, there were two spec's for LAB as far as LinoColor and Photoshop
where concerned (D50 and D65) so you got a mismatch between the two
applications until LinoColor 6. So LAB isn't necessarily self defining if
the software doesn't deal with D50.
There are other reasons I'm sure the experts will further comment on. Prior
to the Qusi-device independent RGB Working Spaces in Photoshop 5 and latter,
there was a reason to consider LAB. With the spaces we have for editing
files, it's questionable if LAB really is an effective route for most
people.
Andrew Rodney
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.