Tom's comments on the ICC.
Tom's comments on the ICC.
- Subject: Tom's comments on the ICC.
- From: "tlianza" <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 18:09:07 -0500
I received some off line mail and I realized that I inadvertantly did a
great disservice to the current folks working at the ICC and I want to make
some clarifications. Some pointed out that what I said might be confusing
to some of the people who read the list and they were quite correct. Let me
make these points.
1. The ICC may have started off badly (in my opinion) but it is working well
today through the efforts of many people. ICC version 4.0 specification
clears up most of the early problems and as we move forward it is clear that
the organization is listening, testing and far more open than it has been in
the past. That should have been said at the end of my last post. The folks
at the ICC have done a good job....but it has taken too long. The entire
premise of the "limited club" was to get the work out into industry ASAP.
2. There is no greater testament to the ICC's current work than the number
of companies that were not original founders, who have taken market
leadership roles in delivering quality products. When I look at the
diversity and numbers of companies like Monaco, Gretag, Franz's current
company (whose name always slips my mind) and all the others that provide
solutions to the customer , it is clear that we are all reaping the benefit
of the work of the ICC.
3. Despite the implicit limitations with the LAB system people are making
the process work by tuning their own algorithms during the profile
generation stage. Graeme Gill has put much of this in perspective in his
posts.
4. I got a number of off line posts asking if we can "put pressure" on the
ICC to look at other alternative spaces. I personally believe that it is
not necessary. The process works and it gets better every day. My comments
about the LAB were designed to give HISTORICAL background, not a
condemnation of the process. The basic framework is in place, and the
vendors are learning.
The problem , in my opinion is, predictable interoperability between
products. In the consumer sector, a lot of good work is being done outside
of the framework of the ICC and the ICC should look closely at that work. I
recently purchased a Canon i850 printer, put it on my system, used my Nikon
D100 in sRGB mode, displayed the images on a Sony display calibrated with a
Sequel (big suprise there, huh) calibrator and printed on Ilford paper. Out
of the box that workflow worked and the images are great. Are they "graphic
arts quality"? I can't say that, but I can say that when I tried changing
to an ICC workflow, ADOBE RGB workspace and using an ICC profile that came
with the printer, properly importing the same nikon image tagged with the
sRGB profile the results were not as good.
Tom Lianza
Technical Director
Sequel Imaging Inc.
25 Nashua Rd.
Londonderry, NH 03053
_______________________________________________
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.