Re: use of sRGB as a default
Re: use of sRGB as a default
- Subject: Re: use of sRGB as a default
- From: Matt Deatherage <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 03:38:32 -0500
On 6/19/04 at 3:33 PM, Chris Murphy <email@hidden> wrote:
>
On Jun 19, 2004, at 4:29 AM, Dennis W. Manasco wrote:
>
>
> 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?
Well, I hate to interrupt such an unfettered session of naked superiority, but here goes.
I'm a programmer. I have an image editing program. I open an image that has no profile attached, and the user edits it, adjusting colors, levels, rotating this or that, airbrushing whatever. Now I want to save the image, but there's no existing profile information. I have to assign a profile to it. The only source I have is - you guessed it - the display.
My user has made the image look the way he wants using his display. The most logical thing to do is to embed the display profile. Given the basic concepts, that *should* mean that the embedded profile describes how the raw pixel values differ from the ideal color space. Either that, or I convert the image using the display as a source with "generic" as a destination and embed the profile to describe how the raw pixel values *should* look. Or something like that.
Yet the overwhelming vibe on this list is that anyone with such an idea is too stupid to be allowed to *view* color, much less manage it. Despite this, I have yet to see any rational explanation, in simple terms, of what you folks consider the correct profile to embed, and why.
>
It's for performance reasons that the concept exists. But I think we're
>
long past the point where display compensation should be occurring
>
within application windows.
And this is what I mean -- you're suggesting here that to manage color properly, an application should not use display profiles to compensate for anything?
I know you all think this is incredibly logical, because you give off that message every time you look down your noses at John or anyone else who dares to suggest that there may be more to designing the system than your particular needs. It's incredibly off-putting most of the time, and it's no wonder that more programmers don't read this list and pick up your wants and needs more correctly.
There's also so many terms thrown around that it's next to impossible to keep up with them. Chris seems to use "monitor RGB" instead of "display color space" or "source color space," I think. Others seem to use "default profile" and "generic profile" as the same thing, and I'm not sure they are. And the only consensus there's been on "ColorSync Preferences" is that apparently there should be 25 different versions so everyone can make it work they way they imagine it.
Feel free to bitch at me about this, it's no skin off my nose. But this is what I perceive. I'm becoming increasingly convinced that color management doesn't improve because customers are more interested in calling vendors stupid for not supporting their ideas than in working together to tell all vendors what they expect, how what they see differs from that, and why it's important.
--
Matt Deatherage <email@hidden> <
http://www.macjournals.com>
I read this list in digest mode; copy me privately for faster responses
_______________________________________________
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.