Re: use of sRGB as a default
Re: use of sRGB as a default
- Subject: Re: use of sRGB as a default
- From: John Zimmerer <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 01:02:35 -0700
Dennis,
Apple will continue to encourage all users on every platform to embed
ICC profiles, so that no one need guess at color. If that profile is an
sRGB profile, then so be it. The broader point is that color should not
be left to assumptions.
It's up to individual users to craft policies for dealing with untagged
data. If you wish to assume sRGB, that is your perrogative. I, for one,
reject the assertion that all untagged data should be considered as
being in sRGB. In my direct experience, most devices that purport to be
sRGB devices are not. So, if devices aren't capturing, displaying, or
printing sRGB, then why should anyone assume sRGB? That's why Apple
chose a generic profile that doesn't suffer from the same limitations
of sRGB, yet is still roughly comparable with a display gamut.
And before anyone raises the issue of bandwidth, this is a non
sequitur. Embedded RGB profiles only need to be a few kilobytes. Also,
broadband adoption is on the rise, so this will be a moot point in the
very near future if not today.
Monitor profiles are not assigned as source when printing or saving as
PDF. Any app that does this must have a bug. I've already encouraged
the list to upgrade to 10.3.4 as we fixed an issue with Preview on this
point.
JZ
On Jun 19, 2004, at 3:29 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
John,
Please excuse my impertinence, but ...
At 1:49 pm -0700 6/17/04, John Zimmerer wrote:
The goal is to make sure each image's color characteristics are
defined by an embedded profile, so "untagged data" no longer exists.
This is a noble goal, but it doesn't change the fact that most of us
are inundated with untagged files daily; they come from the web, from
digital cameras and numerous other sources.
A high percentage of those files actually WERE created in, or
converted to, sRGB.
At 2:15 pm -0700 6/17/04, John Zimmerer wrote:
Now about sRGB as a default color space.
We understand that...
We understand that...
We realize that...
We understand sRGB as a color space has severe limitations....
Given all of the above, Apple does not believe that sRGB is an
appropriate choice for a default RGB color space for untagged images.
I personally despise sRGB as a working space; it's limits are
egregiously obvious when you try to make quality prints using it.
That doesn't mean that I can stick my head in the sand and say it
doesn't exist when I have to work with a preponderancy of files that
were patently created in, or converted to, sRGB but are untagged.
Sure, I can mostly solve the problem by blasting sRGB tags onto
untagged images and then putting them into a tagged workflow, but that
doesn't do anything for my users who are getting magenta monstrosities
when they print from Apple apps like Safari or Preview.
sRGB is a truly abysmal standard, but that doesn't mean that those of
us out in the real world don't have to deal with it.
If Apple is going to have any future cred in color it is going to have
to make it easy for the naive user to produce quality prints from any
program: That means that untagged web and digicam photos print
spot-on. The only way I can see to do that is to embrace sRGB for
untagged images as the default and let advanced users change the
preference.
By the way: How could anyone hired to program Mac OS X color issues be
so unaware of color-management as to assign the monitor profile as the
source?
-=-Dennis
_______________________________________________
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.