Re: Who's right?
Re: Who's right?
- Subject: Re: Who's right?
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:58:06 -0600
On Jun 7, 2004, at 7:38 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jun 6, 2004, at 9:31 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
I don't quite follow you. Black point compensation seems to be a
workaround for particular usage's and workflows using ICC profiles.
In other contexts it doesn't make any sense.
Other than proofing, such as?
No, other than Photoshops (and other similar) CMMs.
Well yeah that was my whole point. It's NOT in other CMMs. It SHOULD be
in other CMMs.
Regardless, it is a necessary function for high quality results
unless you like stripped shadow detail.
No it's not. It is (by your account) a necessary function for high
quality
results if you're using a conventional ICC linking process.
What unconventional ICC linking process would obviate the need for bpc?
The best results I've achieved are to generate a specific gamut
mapping for
the particular source and destination profile, and to invert the
colorimetric
information in the destination A2B tables, rather than link the source
A2B table
to the destination B2A table as in a conventional ICC linking process.
Yeah I think I know what you mean, but I will consult my droid that
speaks Bachi.
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.