Re: A "simplified interpolation model" in Camera Raw?
Re: A "simplified interpolation model" in Camera Raw?
- Subject: Re: A "simplified interpolation model" in Camera Raw?
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:49:24 -0600
- Thread-topic: A "simplified interpolation model" in Camera Raw?
On 7/14/07 6:41 AM, "edmund ronald" wrote:
> Adobe Raw does not use ICC profiles, but interpolates between two
> simplified "Adobe profiles" established for the camera under two
> lighting conditions at opposite ends of the K scale.
So what? Are you saying CR users are unable to produce the output referred
images they wish to express from what is essentially Grayscale data? Are you
saying the numbers and color appearance in CR doesn't match what the user
gets when the image opens in Photoshop? Are you saying a raw converter MUST
have ICC camera profiles to produce acceptable color to end users? I would
submit that expect for a small group, mostly composed of those who WANT to
use custom profiles, the vast majority of Aperture, Lightroom and Camera Raw
users are not in agreement, nor would they wish to go though the process of
building camera profiles. Many have no desire to build printer profiles
either. That the current generation of ink jet printers either do this
internally or supply excellent canned profiles which is a step in the right
direction, like CR and Aperture for those who don't love playing with
Spectrophotometers and expensive ICC profiling packages.
I hear users all the time saying they want color management to be less
expensive and easier to use, not that they want to buy targets and build
profiles (or buy them from outside consultants of which I fall squarely into
that camp). I actually feel that having excellent canned profiles for the
pro series of Epson printers that work out of the box is, despite the fact I
might build far fewer profiles a better proposition for the majority of
users.
> Adobe now refuses to accept that camera
> calibration should be standardised using ICC profiles or an extension
> thereof.
Because by and large, they are not necessary. And I would applaud both Apple
and Adobe for NOT making geek features that add cost to development,
documentation, tech support just so that 3% of their market who like to futz
with profiles can do so. When all you know is a hammer, everything appears
as a nail. IF you or anyone else here can provide stat's that even a third
the market using both products is having issues with color due to a lack of
camera profiles, I'm all ears. But as someone who spends time on both the LR
and Aperture forums, I'm not hearing this. So if it ain't broken.....
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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