Re: untagged RGB data
Re: untagged RGB data
- Subject: Re: untagged RGB data
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:35:54 -0700
on 12/19/03 2:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
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.
No, I'm against using Monitor RGB and in favor of sRGB but I want some users
to have the ability to tell the system not to use sRGB in *some* cases. But
I'd make that a more difficult thing to do. I'm just a tad uncomfortable
with all untagged files being assumed to be sRGB and only sRGB without some
method of changing that (for advanced users or advanced administrators).
>
1. Do you think monitor RGB is a more consistent, and better option
>
than sRGB? (I assume you'll say no.)
No, it's totally WRONG. And given the decision to keep it that way or force
sRGB as an assumption (with no back door to change this), I'll take sRGB
forced upon untagged files any day of the week. I'd just like a tad more
flexibility "just in case". But this isn't a hill worth dying on. The
assumption of untagged files being from your display really needs more
attention and needs to be fixed. Limit untagged files to be assumed as sRGB,
I can live with that.
>
3. Why should such an option not be in applications? Why *must* it be
>
at the OS level?
The only reason would be to fix what we both believe should be fixed by a
group that will not fix it, hence maybe doing so in the OS will provide some
benefit for those working on that OS. I agree that the camera manufacturers
have it totally screwed up and I can see where you're coming from (not
fixing it at the OS despite them). It's just that the other OS can't even
produce a color savvy web browser. So I'd like to see Apple "bail out" the
boneheads in Japan as a benefit to this OS we all know and love. Otherwise,
I'm totally in agreement that these manufacturers are a bunch of Bozo's.
>
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.
For most users, no. But for the users I'm thinking of (those being taught
correctly or those who's systems are being administered by people what know
what they are doing), we could allow simple working spaces to be seen or
used.
>
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.
I see your point and in a sense I agree. Again, I'm wondering if we make
this a tad more flexible, if this might not be a feather in Apple's cap. But
the idea of untagged being monitor RGB is just silly and wrong!
>
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.
No question but in the years I've seen the Japanese building cameras, they
still don't get it and think the way they do things actually makes sense. If
I were king of the world and come demand all DSLR's actually tag a file, I'd
have no issues with locking sRGB as the default for untagged RGB files (in
fact I really don't have a huge problem with this but would like the
opportunity to have a say in this).
>
Fix iPhoto. Don't screw up the entire operating system.
Sounds good to me.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.imagingrevue.com/
_______________________________________________
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.