Re: Photogamut
Re: Photogamut
- Subject: Re: Photogamut
- From: Tyler Boley <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:56:30 -0800
Roger Breton wrote:
...Wouldn't we want
all in gamut colors acurate, rather than subjectively altered, in a
working space?
Well, if I read into PhotoGamut correctly, this is more than a working
space. This is akin to a "printer" or "output-referred" space (like ROMM and
RIMM RGB). So, if tonal relationships are altered for some divine reasons by
the designers of that space then it needs to be examined on the basis of its
merits --
Yes of course. But shouldn't that sort of preference and departure be
confined to perceptual conversions and leave colormetric as accurate as
possible?
Perhaps I'm way off base here, maybe this is confined to perceptual and
I've made an incorrect assumption.
...
Furthurmore, even if that is not a requirement, I have to say that too
much saturation in near neutrals Is a problem I've never ever seen.
OK. So your view on this concur with the authors, wouldn't you say?
Hmm, I thought they were going the other way...
In
fact, with perceptual conversions, too many output profiles lose visual
distinction between them.
I agree with you that there are many profiling packages whose perceptual
tables aren't that different to their relative tables, if that's what you're
referring to?
No, I know what to expect from relative when we need it. With perceptual
I find that very close and near neutral colors can be pushed together
and not well defined by some profiles because of the overall
compression. Something like relative for in gamut, and morphing over to
perceptual as gamut border is approached would be to my liking.
So I wouldn't mind if the two intents were very close for most real
world colors.
The dilemma with designers making "pleasing" decisions about their
perceptual mapping is that we may not agree, nor those giving me
carefully prepped files to print, but there we are.
But there's that subjectivity again.
It's easy to say everything is subjective -- I don't mean that derogatively,
please rest assured. But that's a frequent comment. Over and above
subjectivity, there exists some sound and basic color reproduction ideas
that have not changed much over time. I was alluded to correctness of hue in
an earlier post, as an example. If PhotoGamut does meet some of thse
universally agreed upon old repro ideas (read before ColorSync and the ICC
-- and soon WCS!), I think it has merit as not being just a cold, synthetic
space to convert colors into but something that has some enhanced color
imaging ideas, just like Joe Holmes "chroma variants". Although, please
don't quote me as trying to compare or contrast the two.
What do you think?
I agree, another interesting thing about Photogamut is that I could edit
it if I like. All of this is where the art comes in I suppose.
My grumbling has to do with other ongoing conversion problems I run into
on a continuing basis here. A great deal of the time I just need
"accurate" conversion, therefore relcol, but we have no BPC outside of
Adobe, and therefore that's not viable. That leaves me with perceptual,
which is fine for the most part, but it's been made "pleasing" in an
unacceptable way a great deal of the time.
I was hoping Photogamut could be part of a solution in this environment.
I did open this in Colorthink, interesting. It did contain the gamut of
our UC matte profiles, not my little Canon though. The real test will be
what conversions from these huge input spaces look like, that continues
to be another ongoing problem.
Tyler
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden