Re: untagged RGB data
Re: untagged RGB data
- Subject: Re: untagged RGB data
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 14:28:23 -0700
On Dec 19, 2003, at 1:31 PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:
on 12/19/03 1:07 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
1. Why are they untagged?
The camera manufacturers just donUt do it. They supply some EXIF data
(if
sRGB). I can't tell you why they don't but it's a drag and the
colorspace is
known (you the user have to set it) but not carried with the file
(excluding
EXIF data which can be set to "none" which isn't helpful).
I don't see why the rest of the world's workflows should be punished,
or put at risk, because certain vendors can't get things right. The
camera vendors have acted so irresponsibly when it comes to color
management that I have no problem with making them eat responsibility
with a shovel. Let's tell them to use JPEG2000 which requires embedded
profiles, in the spec.
We should not be holding back color management progess by making it
easier for vendors to do the wrong thing.
Andrew, maybe you aren't quite realizing what you're asking for here.
Right now, you have monitor RGB being assumed for all of these images
you are saying *might* need to have some other assumed source.
1. Do you think monitor RGB is a more consistent, and better option
than sRGB? (I assume you'll say no.)
2. Then why in the world would you want to make things *vastly* most
inconsistent by allowing user selected assumed source profile on a
system wide basis?
3. Why should such an option not be in applications? Why *must* it be
at the OS level?
I think your suggestion of doing this WILL help in many cases but
there are
cases where hard wiring sRGB with no way to alter that could cause
further
problems for some.
I'm not saying there is no way to alter it. I'm saying that only at
the operating system level, untagged=sRGB. That untagged-Adobe RGB. If
you want choice for some other behavior, talk to the application
developer.
To allow for untagged images to remain untagged, and have a user
selectable assumed profile allows *by design* inconsistent color
appearance and at the end user's whim. Can you imagine the additional
technical support problems this can cause? Hide it from the user so
when the find it and change it, then can't find it again to change it
back, but have no idea why everything is coming out crazy pink or
green.
What profiles do we allow them to select? How do we decide that?
Because surely we shouldn't allow any RGB profile to be used as assumed
sources.
Assuming sRGB is not ideal for everyone. But it fits the needs of MOST
of the Macintosh market from end users to developers as well as Apple's
needs: "Untagged RGB = sRGB and that's it. If users want something
else, tag it and embed it. It is not our responsibility to make
untagged RGB life easy, at the expense of color consistency and easy of
use." The options and the choices should come from developers in this
regard. Not Apple.
That should be up to the camera to do, or the image capture software.
I don't disagree but that's not what is happening so we have an issue
where
a lot of untagged data is being created that's not in sRGB.
How does a system level choice of what to assume as source for
*everything* untagged solve this problem? It can't - it's a hack. You
cannot really solve this kind of problem at the operating system level.
It must be solved at the camera ideally, or its capture software (or
first point of contact). And that software must be capable of tagging
and embedding.
The operating system can only assume. It can't tag and embed. A user
selectable choice for RGB Default does not solve this fundamental
problem. It actually makes the problem worse because it guarantees a
disconnect between color appearance and what is described in the file
itself (because there's no profile in it, defining that image's color
appearance).
We are not assuming as in most cases, the user tells the camera "I want
sRGB". That you end up with a slew of untagged files is the problem
and the
EXIF data has been as much harm as good. So while we are not always
assuming, we do have untagged files being created and I'm not sure
we'll
ever see the camera manufacturers change (at least anytime soon).
This problem is not solved by a system level choice. An application is
needed to solve it: tag the image, then embed it into the file,
automatically if you wish. There are AppleScripts that can do this
also. System wide assumption does not solve the underlying problem,
which you even state here, and that is the lack of embedded profiles by
camera vendors.
Yes to a degree. That would be somewhat of a feather in Apple's cap.
There
certainly are other utilities that could take this slew of untagged
files
and tag em (even AppleScript). I'm just saying that this could also
work if
we could open that back door and tell the OS, "This isn't sRGB, it's
Adobe
RGB".
But it doesn't work. It's a half assed solution that will cause more
problems. Tagging is what's needed to solve the problem. Assumption by
the OS alone solved the problem ONLY ON THAT SPECIFIC WORKSTATION.
Until the images are tagged, their color appearance is up to the whim
of a setting somewhere and that is not congruent with "consistent
color".
You're getting close to convincing me. For the user who knows the
meaning of
the file AND has Photoshop, the solution is easy to fix. With iPhoto?
Fix iPhoto. Don't screw up the entire operating system.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
---------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-201-77340-6)
_______________________________________________
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.