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 14:41:30 -0700
Gee, I missed this sort of thrust and parry.... For those getting the
digest version, I'm going to start cleanign up the responses a bit, so
you might have to refer back to previous posts.
Thanks in advance for sending me the list. I'll do what I can.
All true. But it's a fair bet that the vast majority of such content
was created and viewed on a gamma 2.2 display with sRGB-like
primaries, and it's a given that most online print services, and most
other things that interact with this untagged content, assume sRGB
absent any better information.
Fair enough. But I'd still like to see the practice of embedding
profiles more widely adopted.
You must live in a very different universe from the one I do. My Macs
are more than fast enough to do on-the-fly display compensation-heck,
they've been doing it since Photoshop 5-but my DSL line sure as hell
isn't fast enough to make me enjoy 3,144 bytes of extra data in every
JPEG. Talk to the ImageReady team sometime about what their product
actually gets used for-it's mostly about shaving every last K possible
off images.
If we're talking about assuming sRGB in the browser, I'm glad to hear
you have a fast Mac and a DSL connection since at that point, every
image would have to be matched to the display profile. And again,
profiles do not have to be large. Our sRGB profile weighs in at 1,080
bytes.
a) sRGB is the space that comes closest to representing the "average"
viewing condition.
Sorry, don't agree. sRGB uses a 2.2 gamma, which assumes a much darker
environment than the average user's. Refer to earlier emails for other
criticisms of sRGB.
b) most consumer-level cameras and printers, most online printing
services, and a very large number of digital minilabs assume sRGB and
at least attempt to simulate it.
Not 100% accurate. Most devices lie about their color space, claiming
sRGB when, in fact, they have much broader color spaces and try to
shoehorn data into sRGB when saving JPEG data. Most printing services
aren't ICC savvy, and therefor resort to using the EXIF data to try and
do color matching. But anyone who uses custom ICC profiles for cameras
knows that, while the EXIF might say sRGB, the data certainly doesn't.
(Combining both c and d points)
As I've stated in an earlier email, I'm happy to pass along the
requirement that Safari assume sRGB as the color space for untagged
images.
Yes, the idea of scanners, cameras, and printers producing sRGB is of
course a damned lie, but that's how people view, evaluate, edit, and
on rare occasions, tag said RGB. Arbitrarily remapping all that color
to something else seems distinctly unhelpful.
Ironic, since that's exactly what happens when assuming sRGB....
_______________________________________________
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.